-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Better battieries?
- Thread starter mrobins64495
- Start date
JAR897
Member
Saw this today also. At the moment (for M3P) the rates miles per KW is 4.38 (329mi/75kw). A 20% uplift would take this to 5.25, resulting in a 75kw battery rated mileage of 393kw.
I guess then the question is if they can squeeze more kw’s into the car to get above 400mi range etc?
A key question for me, with the introduction of either (a) more KW in the car or (b) higher density: would the car take longer to charge? And thus, is there a trade off between rates mileage and charge time?
The version I read said the 20% increase would be over the next five years.
rincewind
Member
If it's A then yes, longer to charge. If it's B then it depends. If by obtaining a higher density, they make the battery pack smaller and keep the KWH the same, then charging won't take longer.
Basically, if the KWH capacity increases, so does the charge time (as long as the charging rate remains the same).
MrBadger
Badger out
An increase in energy density results in a higher kWh rated battery pack in same physical constraints.
So a 20% increase in energy density would result in a 70 to 84kWh or 75 to 90kWh (or whatever size you use to compare) battery pack all other things remaining equal.
Or just keep energy capacity the same, save on physical resources and bring prices down.
JAR897
Member
Ah I see. I’m assuming Tesla are all over optimising this given it sounds two routes of option; (1) keep same KW (75kw) but at lighter weight to maximise efficiency or (2) Chuck more KW into the car and mitigate a drag on efficiency driven through weight increase.
I suspect with both options there’s a bell-curve of opportunity, and finding the intersection of the two and then identifying the highest margin option will be their game.
I suspect with both options there’s a bell-curve of opportunity, and finding the intersection of the two and then identifying the highest margin option will be their game.
LongRanger
Active Member
LR+ has to be the next thing to keep the 3 “fresh”, it’s not a new car to the US market any more, then 2 years later do the same for EU/UK.
The batteries are the same worldwide as far as I’m aware so being RHD or LHD wouldn’t matter in this scenario. Can’t imagine them producing “older” style batteries just for RHD. I do agree with LR+ but I’d imagine it’ll be worldwide rollout (maybe bar China). But then again, wasn’t the “LR+“ name, just to please the EPA rating which might not apply outside USA...
I think there is a good argument that as the market matures buyers will realise that there is no point lugging round a heavy, depreciating and expensive asset unless you need it. Insurance should realise the same with lower premiums for cheaper batteries.
So making light, energy-dense packs could start to take priority over massive headline - grabbing range numbers, especially if and when charging infrastructure matures.
Efficiency with ample range should really be top priority over highest range at any cost.
LongRanger
Active Member
also it’s about spread of options available, having the choice of modular smaller packs gives so much choice to manufacturers and customers - particularly for say van drivers some of who are banging out 1k+ miles per week.
Does it also potentially start to open up a different long-term maintenance and replacement scheme for a”module” of a power pack and not force used buyers in 10 years time to fork out on the entire pack @£10k or whatever ?
Does it also potentially start to open up a different long-term maintenance and replacement scheme for a”module” of a power pack and not force used buyers in 10 years time to fork out on the entire pack @£10k or whatever ?
I completely agree, but it’s more about how the average ICE driver sees it. They’re used to travelling four or five hundred miles between filling up, and although that’s not how you use an EV, lots of people don’t realise that until they drive one.
The Kona electric that we had was offered in two battery sizes, 39kWh and 64kWh, both with ample range for most users, but the 39kWh version sold only a handful of units.
Many people want a bigger battery as insurance against range anxiety.
As Renault apparently found with their EV's, there can be problems if you separate battery and vehicle ownership too much.
Again with a super long term view, if EV's are going to deliver any kind of sustainable presence, battery life cycle / processing is a huge factor. To avoid 8 year old vehicles full of low wear / long life / low maintenance drive trains becoming valueless when their batteries reach end of life, manufacturers will have to offer easy, cost effective options to keep those cars viable. It could be that manufacturers offer used EV's on bundled packages where a monthly fee covers everything including keeping the battery above an agreed minimum threshold.
Commercial / revenue earning vehicles will likely be different and there I can see high capacity batterries being attractive where they allow a vehicle to stay out earning for longer. I guess leasing and finance is the norm in that marketplace and fleet operators just care about monthly cost, availability and ability to do the job.
Renault's model of renting the battery separate from the vehicle seemed problematic from various perspectives. Since the owner insures the whole vehicle based on whole vehicle value, who gets the salvage in a write-off situation? The insurers or Renault (who still own the battery). And what happens when a vehicle is not being used (up for sale / extended repair period) as the battery rental fees still have to be paid.
There's also the real benefit to larger capacity battery capacities that are run well within their limits. This would result in fewer cycles and and ability to stay within the charging mid-range so ensuring an extra long battery life and further minimise degradation. Aside from that we buy 5 seater cars and only very occasionally need to use the 5 seats, or an estate car which is only filled to capacity when going on holiday... it's nice to have the extra! In strict efficiency terms we don't need much more range but despite me having an SR+ that has turned out to be a perfect balance for our particular needs it doesn't stop me having a flutter of excitement when Roy speculates on 100kWh or 125kWh batteries for the Model 3!
LongRanger
Active Member
.... 125kwh Performance with -250kg weight and some trick mag-ride style damping. Then we’d have ourselves a car.
That's certainly true, but I feel that for mainstream (read daily drivers, shopping, school run etc) then really you probably want to make actual 10% display as 'Empty' and actual 85% display as 'Full'. There really needs to be harmonisation over requiring / declaring buffer capacities and just how far marketing can stretch spec's.
Mr H
Active Member
Similar threads
