Tesla Model S Goes 752 Miles with a Startup's Prototype Battery
caranddriver.com
caranddriver.com
tests were averaging 55 mph
the battery pack has twice the capacity and is twice as dense, allowing it to fit in the same space as the stock battery, and delivers the same performance
so it is impressive and useful, not really much scifi here which is good, its just a double capacity battery in the same space that delivers the same performance
definitely has now reached the range I'm looking for. make it happen, and somebody please just make classic car shells have these batteries in them. I don't understand why its just tesla, a couple of other luxury car brands that cost twice or thrice as much for worse charging service, or luxury car brands that decided to make a fugly tron-esque version of their car instead of just doing the same thing they're known for with a battery under the hood. intentionally ignoring the cheaper vehicles because they're not in the running either.
I mean, lithium batteries are already pretty space-efficient. This kind of optimization surely has a home in some application (to be clear: it already does in consumer electronics!). I'm just not sure cars are where it's best applied.
I just want a car that does what is described, ideally without other tradeoffs. I would consider paying a premium for that, to an extent. I mean Tesla has been teasing Roadsters w/ 600 miles per charge at $250,000 for 5 years now. So someone just do the thing and make the option.
the list goes on, but you get the point.
it's all a cost/benefit ratio between duration/range/cost/marketability/reliability ; you can take care of the technical issues behind weight gain, but is there still a market there once you do and the cost to produce skyrockets?
Also keep in mind that with an electric car, most users will use a home charger and start each day at full charge (even the slow charger can manage this if you're getting enough sleep). At the article's state 55 mph to get their range, it would take just over 7 hours of driving to go 400 miles. That's plenty for daily, non-fleet use.
Kinetic energy. That could make collisions more dangerous (though I’m not sure by how much)
Tesla Model S: 4600 lbs (Original battery: 1323 lbs) https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s-weight/
Gemini Battery: additional 730 lbs https://www.carhp.com/news/one-s-prototype-battery-registers...
Jeeez. That’s almost the curb weight of my Miata.
I'd call it downright bad if you're looking at earlier models.
An extra 730lbs is most of the typical payload capacity for a typical car.
The model S has a GVWR of 5600lbs and weighs about 4600lbs meaning you can only put about 1000lbs of stuff in/on it safely.
With this extra battery weight there isn’t enough capacity left to carry more that two typical adults let alone any luggage.
"There's no way GM can build a sub-$100k mid engine Corvette" was a common refrain too. They didn't get to that size by being bad at designing cars.
Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?
The current level of tesla's battery/chassis integration is not any more sophisticated than everyone else that I can see.
I think you don't know what you're talking about.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/a15539/rebuildi...
https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/ford-prepares-to-ret...
>Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?
Yes, they did integrate the battery pack into the chassis on both the mach-e and the lightning.
https://s3-prod.rubbernews.com/s3fs-public/styles/width_792/...
I really do NOT know the figures, but I thought Tesla's only charged the cells to 80% and discharged to 20% to save battery life. If you are doing a one off test, you could go from 100%-0% to get 40% more battery life. And the article talks about fancy chemistries, but then says:
"As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development."
So they used what might be normal high capacity cells. Maybe their battery has fewer structural components so they can fit more cells in. Maybe Tesla uses a different chemistry for longer pack life.
It seems like anyone could get maybe 40% more range doing nothing at all by simply fully charging and fully depleting the cells, and if you took the highest possible energy density cells and shoved them in to the same space with less structural members, maybe you could get the rest of the range they claimed. In fact it seems like that's what they did.
But that's not an innovation if the pack will wear out in a year, or weaken the structure of the car.
Like I said I am just speculating here and I don't really know, but so far this doesn't actually seem like the company has anything special. I have a feeling that if Tesla wanted to, they could do the same thing for a single demo, but that they have competing engineering requirements that mean they don't do this in production.
But I think the biggest difference is probably that there are known high capacity chemistries with shorter longevity, which can be safely ignored for a one off test to drum up press for investors.
The exception to this rule is cars sold with a lower capacity, where the battery is capacity is software locked. But that’s a market segmentation thing, not a battery protection thing. I also think there was only a short period where this happened on the Model S. These days Tesla has the scale where it’s more economical to have multiple battery versions for each capacity, than it is to reduce manufacturing complexity with fewer SKUs (and software lock the battery).
You are exactly right that it's not an innovation if the battery can't last similar to almost 10 year's ago lithium batteries with heating and cooling of the battery packs.
I think this is achievable today, just by doubling the battery pack (which would take some more space, so maybe these folks have something). Tesla's plan for the ever delayed new roadster was basically put two levels of their battery pack (double it) to get more energy to go faster, but all that energy made it go much further - not double range because of the added weight but a lot farther than a single battery pack.
Can it do that after 5 years of use? At 5 degrees F? Can it charge in 5 minutes? Even the cheapest gas powered cars can do this.
This sort of performance may not matter to you if you only commute to work and back, but its the kind of performance that many people need on a day-to-day basis.
But yes, if all those other things are decent enough, Tesla obviously has the money to acquire this startup.
Not according to the article:
"In practice, that means lithium iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistry, which historically has energy density 30 percent lower than cobalt- or nickel-based chemistries (and, unfortunately, reportedly cold-weather issues). Its first product, Aries, will go into production late this year. It's a battery using prismatic LFP cells in a structural cell-to-pack architecture without separate modules, packing more cells into the pack to lower the energy disadvantage against cobalt cells."
> "The cathode will be made of a proprietary material rich in manganese that ONE says can be sustainably sourced at low cost. (The company has so far applied for 14 patents related to the Gemini pack.) The LFP cells cover 99 percent of the vehicle’s duty cycle, Ijaz told C/D, and the range extender is used for just 1 percent.
> As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development."
So this was just an energy density demonstration. It does sound like they plan to use LFP cells, not cobalt-nickel, for the production batteries.
> "The company dubs its prototype a proof of concept. The point is to show that real-world ranges far longer than an average driver's endurance (pit stops, ahem) can be achieved in the near future. The next step is for it to evolve into a new battery called Gemini, intended to go into production after 2023."
They don't say whether it is LFP based though.
Which would amusingly put your 600 mile guess just about dead on.
With a convential vehicle, it's not so simple. A lot of things get worse, but engine efficiency is usually better with higher temperatures (which is why the VW TDI NOx emissions fix results in more CO2 emissions; NOx is a result of nitrogen in outside air being exposed to the hot engine, lowering the temperature reduces fuel efficiency and NOx production), and the gearing is designed to get maxium fuel efficiency at higher speeds. Of course, if it would be commercially acceptable, an engine and gearing could be designed to get max efficiency at a lower speed and have a 40 mph super efficient vehicle. Hybrids can do a lot better at running the engine near peak efficiency or having the engine off, allowing for higher mpg all over the speed spectrum.
Plug in hybrids let you drive around emission free for the overwhelming majority of situations at a fraction of the cost, but without the range anxiety. You only burn gas on long trips, and you can go as far as you want with easy refueling. Combustion fuels have immensely greater energy density than batteries, so carrying a few hundred miles of extra range around, either in your main tank or in a jerrycan, doesn't have a serious impact on weight, and ICEs are not nearly as temperature sensitive as batteries so you don't get screwed over in the winter. And for series hybrids like the chevy Volt, you get both the handling and efficiency of an electric vehicle even when on gasoline power. With federal tax credits plug in hybrid versions of many cars are actually cheaper than gasoline-only versions of the same models.
There may be a serious argument for people who don't need long range (for example those buying a second car) to forego the engine altogether and just get an electric vehicle with a little longer range, but if ~200 miles isn't enough range for you then just go with the hybrid.
Also, winter is a non-issue. Take it from someone living where it gets quite cold.
Time to put aside your toys and embrace the future :)
Edit: Just to be clear Im not even supporting ICEs, Im against the duct tape measures for a problem thats already causing lot of problems. It would rather be awesome if EVs are actually built on something clean from production to daily usage. In some countries the EVs even outweigh the benefits they provide since the power grid is old school. Also mining the current battery minerals is not clean in one bit.
RE: dirty batteries. I'll take relatively minor environmental damage that can be confined to one spot any day of the week over literally spewing toxic fumes into everybody else's lungs and heating up the entire damn globe. That's a no-brainer. And the sooner we can move to nuclear + renewables to power everything, including battery construction, the better.
Greener, cheaper, more convenient - plug in hybrids are the way to go.
Did they actually do tests to validate that the battery would be safe in the event of a minor crash, before driving it on public roads?
It's more of a consideration when you put the car into the hands of consumers.
Lots of consumers seem to be waiting on the sidelines until some magic range number is achieved (500? 1,000?), when in practice that range is unneeded on a daily basis. It’s like demanding a all-day battery from a laptop, only to leave it plugged in all day long anyway.
Weather permitting, cycling is doable in some places. Most places however have narrow (or no!) bike lanes with automotive surface traffic moving at least 48kph and drivers having zero clue how to drive around bicycles. In urban areas there are usually cars parked directly next to the bike lane, with drivers opening doors into the bike lane. Many commercial delivery vehicles park in bike lanes as well; in the places where that is forbidden (fewer than you would think) the laws against it are typically unenforced.
[edit]
To give you an idea, I drive my 13y.o. daughter to school. It takes about 10 minutes. This is ridiculous. However the other options are:
- Walk (no place to leave bike near bus stop) a bit over 2km to nearest bus stop, take 45 minute bus ride.
- Bicycle along a road with 72kph speed limit; bike lane is not separated and is as narrow as 20cm(!!) in places with cars that are alternating between going above the speed-limit and stopped (with cars turning across traffic in gaps while stopped; I have personally witnessed 2 car vs car collisions where the two cars couldn't see each other due to stopped lane of traffic between them. A bicyclist would have been killed. Most bicyclists (including me) avoid this road, though enough travel on it for one to get hit by a car roughly annually (only 1 fatality in the past 3 years that I can remember though).
- Bicycle an extra 3km (6 vs 9), crossing the above death-trap road, but not cycling along it. This still travels along a road with a 72kph speed limit, but traffic is much lighter and shoulders are much wider. There is one intersection that is a bit nuts, but can be traversed by hopping off the bicycle and using the cross-walks.
Significant swaths of Boston.
But, except for that, completely agree.
:)
A lot of people outside the US don't realize how new all our city layouts are. The majority of American cities were built out after cars came onto the scene. Did the cities exist before cars? Sure, but except for a few east coast cities, only with population numbers that could best be described as laughable.
It's viable in San Francisco proper as well.
My "every day" short trips (I claim that's < 100 miles total) are, going to work (70 miles round trip), going out on the weekends (almost always < 60 miles, to get to the beach) going to the grocery store (5 miles, with ~40lbs of groceries, with steep hills).
Maybe this is a US thing, but I definitely can't do any of these things with my feet, in a reasonable amount of time. I also can't afford to live anywhere closer to work (getting within biking distance means a few million dollars, for a home, or my three bedroom mortgage for a single bedroom apartment), or next to a grocery store (there's no housing available there).
But, I can easily do all of this within the range of my 100 mile electric car, that I purchased for $8k.
Is it affordable to live close to work, in other countries? In the US, if you're in tech, you're paying a significant portion of your income to be within biking distance.
Not really. Before COVID, I generally took a 15 minute run to the train station, then took the train for about hour, then took another 20 minute run to get to work at the local tech centre. If I had a fold-up bike, it would be a lot quicker, because there are bicycle paths. (In theory, I could've worked remotely, but it was easier to get stuff done with access to a whiteboard and the person in charge of systems architecture. I could also take a regular bike on the train, but if everyone did it that would be a mess, so I don't.)
I do stand by my “doing it wrong” remark – though I'll have to apply it to whoever designed your cities. That situation is awful (though good on you for using an electric car).
It’s just that I’m eager to not spend time not on the prime activity.
Which is great if you have space for and can afford two cars.
But if you don’t and / or can’t, you need your one car to handle both your daily driving needs and the odd long range trip.
> It’s like demanding a all-day battery from a laptop, only to leave it plugged in all day long anyway.
Which i’m reasonably sure is what’s happening to many MBPs, but if you do actually meed the odd all-day battery… then you do need it.
I've never owned (or needed a car) so I can't speak for myself, but my family and friends are 100% convinced that BEV are the future, and they also have the means to buy one now. They just tell themselves that they must wait for their neighbors to buy an EV first and hear first hand that charging is indeed not an issue before making the switch. It's a chicken or the egg problem and in the meantime, they're fine with purchasing plugins (even though they know it's a worse choice and that the plugin will depreciate faster)
Most people are simply risk-averse and they are enough early-adopters queuing for a Tesla delivery. So EV adoption can't go faster than Tesla can build factories and pump out cars. The early majority will follow suit.
Having recently explored it, electric cars are very nearly but not quite ahead in a few areas:
- Electric or plug-in hybrids are still typically a more expensive option. For example, the RAV4 has a plug-in hybrid option, or just hybrid, but both of those are a fair amount more expensive than competing compact SUVs.
- Infrastructure. Electric cars become practical when you can charge overnight at home. For many people, the cost of getting electric service retrofitted is too expensive, and many others are renters with no way to charge at home. Beyond that, charging on roadtrips is very hit or miss unless you have a Tesla. (And as a side note, with poor charging infra, longer range becomes more important.)
Of course, both of these problems are close to being solved, but they add extra considerations that people don’t have to make with gas cars.
Anyways, main point: I think consumers are waiting for other reasons than 500mi range.
This could also enable removable battery modules. I could envision an EV with 150-200 mile range for everyday driving, with additional batteries kept at home connected to energy storage (like a Tesla Powerwall). When you want to go on a road trip, you just disconnect the modules and install them in the lower part of the frunk and trunk. The packs could also have other uses - you could load one into an electric motorcycle (much like the Zero Motorcycle already can). If you're desperate for a charge but don't have a plug near a parking spot, you can lug a module to a wall outlet. And we've seen how additional batteries enables additional current (and therefore performance), so EV sports cars could be lower-horsepower "daily drivers" until you install the batteries for a weekend drive.
A standard plug is 3.6kW, overnight that’s under 30kWh (probably significantly so as charging slows down a lot above 80%). To charge a model s 100 overnight you need a 22kW charger (3-phase 400V 32A). In europe that’s the biggest you can get in a residential setting I think.
For double that you’d need a fast DC charger, I don’t think that’a available for residential use.
You'd get pretty close to "overnight" charging in the US as well. Its often not too hard to add a 48A 240V EVSE into a garage here, 8 hours would get you ~92kWh of charging power. I'm not entirely sure what charging efficiencies look like on a Model S, and 92kWh is only 92% of of the battery, but chances are you weren't pulling into your garage at 0% charge anyways.
Yes. Because 5 < 8 it works for an overnight charge. The chargers I’ve seen below that are 11kW, which is not sufficient, hence “you need a 22”, because the model below that does not suffice. Though it is of course possible intermediate models do exist and I’m unaware of them. Tho I guess it would make sense for american residential power supply to top out somewhere inbetween.
And do remember, charge speed is not constant and slows down drastically as levels close in on full.
> You'd get pretty close to "overnight" charging in the US as well.
The context of the discussion is the ability to charge a 200kW battery overnight yes? My point is overnighting 100kW is already a pretty heavy requirement.
Although I’m not sure that’s much if an issue, doing >700mi multiple days back to back in a car and going home every time seems quite the rare use-case, usually it’s more of a road trip situation so you could find fast DC stations on the way and your overnight would not be critical.
- 230V 16A (3.6), that’s your bog-standard plug
- 230V 32A (7.2), that’s your high-amp, usually for things like AC, electric cooktops and ovens, driers, …
- 3-phase 400V 16A (11kW), same as above but for the rarer cases where 7.2 is not enough (e.g. high-end electric ranges commonly exceed 7.2 if they have high-power burners or lots of them), as well as higher-end tinkering / DIY tools, it used to be very common but really drew down over time as single-phase power & reliability increased and simplified setup, I have not looked but I expect EVs are leading (or will lead) to a renaissance of residential 3-phase.
- 3-phase 400V 32A (22kW), same as above with larger wires, AFAIK it’s basically the biggest supply you can get in a home or appartment.
Thanks for sharing!