TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Converted Audi A2 goes 605 km (378mi) without charging

Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by Adm, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. dpeilow

    dpeilow Moderator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Location:
    Winchester, UK
    The comments on this one contain an interesting story:

     
  2. Norbert

    Norbert TSLA will win

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #43 Norbert, Feb 6, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2011
    Most of those numbers agree with what is found on the company's own website: http://www.lekker-mobil.com/images/stories/pdf/technische-Daten-Audi-A2.pdf (98.8 kWh and 350kg resulting in 282 Wh/kg)

    However the numbers in the following quote are a result of confusing different versions of the battery, probably coming from this interview: http://www.cleanthinking.de/kolibiri-akku-praxiseinsatz-papstar-dbm-technologie/8407/

    The numbers 240 Ah and 100kg refer to an early version of the battery, whereas a later version has nominally 560Ah and 48V. The text doesn't clarify whether the weight of the later version of the battery was still 100kg, and whether the earlier battery had the same voltage of 48V. The company doesn't fully charge the later version of battery, only 3 hours of 130 Ah (= 390 Ah), apparently due to the specific charger being used.

    So if the weight remained the same, and if the nominal value was correct, this would be about 270 Wh/kg, quite close to the 282 Wh/kg above. However, the nominal value apparently hasn't been confirmed in the fork-lift company's usage (or at least not by this interview). It is only using a charging level of 390 Ah which implies at least 187 Wh/kg (if the voltage it gets is 48V). 187 is 2/3 of 282, and the last third needs a more solid "proof". Also, since the article (at www.cleanthinking.de) presents an incomplete set of numbers without even trying to address the resulting lack of clarity, I'd hesitate to rely those number that are given. On the other hand, most who cast doubt on the 605 km drive, seem to have been using wrong numbers for their calculations.
     
  3. Eberhard

    Eberhard #421 Model S #S32

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,143
    Location:
    Germany
    the newest panasonic 18650 has 3400mAh and has a energy density of 280Wh/kg. The still on development 4000mAh is even a little better but with 50g also a little heavier.
     
  4. Norbert

    Norbert TSLA will win

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    The 4000 mAh apparently also has a lower voltage so it is not as much better as one might hope by dividing 4000/3400. (Sorry don't have a link to the voltage right now.)
     
  5. Norbert

    Norbert TSLA will win

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #46 Norbert, Feb 6, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2011
    (I don't quite understand why the Ah numbers are used so much, to me they seem quite useless without the voltage, and I wish that Wh and Wh/kg numbers were given instead.)
     
  6. dpeilow

    dpeilow Moderator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Location:
    Winchester, UK
    Yeah, IIRC the voltage on the 4Ah one is 3.4V, so it actually has a slightly worse energy density.
     
  7. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    18,105
    Location:
    Central New York
  8. EVNow

    EVNow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,860
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    A fraud is easier to pull off than a 4 fold increase in energy density or 50 fold decrease in cost. So going by Occam's razor ... it is a fraud.
     
  9. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    18,105
    Location:
    Central New York
    They have a lot of different people and groups involved in the fraud with them if it is. It will also be quickly exposed if they can't deliver an actual product that performs as specified, so I'm not sure how they'd expect to make any money or get away with it.
     
  10. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    9,444
    Interesting that the battery caught on fire. Lithium metal is one of the most volatile type of batteries and it seems for their forklift batteries, they also have a history of fire.

    I also feel there is a good chance this is a fraud. I was already very skeptical when it was announced, esp since there were no pictures of what the pack looked like (which is unlike all EV makers I have seen; they like to show off their pack a lot). And as a battery OEM, I don't see why they don't have some sample cells available for third party verification. If they were serious about getting them to mass market, and their cells really are as good as they claim, third party verification will give them enough credibility to get significant investors.
     
  11. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    18,105
    Location:
    Central New York
    The car that burned did not have the Kolibri battery installed. The forklift problem was supposedly a defective charger I believe. Any battery can melt down or burn if a charger fails to shut off.
     
  12. dpeilow

    dpeilow Moderator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Location:
    Winchester, UK
    It says up thread that they are being tested by government test agencies, so I guess we just sit tight and wait for results.
     
  13. EVNow

    EVNow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,860
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Or the "4 times ED, 50 fold decrease in cost" is not correct.
     
  14. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    18,105
    Location:
    Central New York
    Where did you get those numbers? It looks to be a little more than 2 times the ED of LiCo and cost is unknown.
     
  15. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    18,105
    Location:
    Central New York
    #56 JRP3, Apr 1, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
    Anyone want to take a crack at a better translation that google?
    http://www.dbm-energy.com/de/presse.html

    Looks as if they did a new test and got 454.82 kilometers from a 62.928 kWh pack, which may or may not be impressive depending on the speed.

    OK, there is a PDF in English http://www.dbm-energy.com/de/dlfiles/3.pdf
    Still not clear what actually happened.
     
  16. Adm

    Adm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,609
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    The test was done at the testing facility of Dekra. They put the car up on the roller dynamometer for a test called ECE-R101 http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r101r2e.pdf. This a European standardized test for measuring co2 emissions and fuel consumption. The test is known to be unrealistic. I don't believe a single car has come close to the test results in real life use.
    The test covers a simulated course of 11km or 6.8 mi. It simulates an urban and extra urban cycle. The average speed in the whole test is (please fasten your seat belts) 33.6 km/h or 20.9 mph. Top speed in the extra urban cycle is 120km/h or 74.5 mph for 14 seconds. (pages 51-54 of the test protocol above)
     
  17. Eberhard

    Eberhard #421 Model S #S32

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,143
    Location:
    Germany
    all of this measurement does not matter. what is important: what is the real usable capacity at what weight? means the usable energy density and the charging-/decharging efficiency as well as the charging time and the power density.
    and for the cost efficiency: what is the cycle life: #full cycles until 80% of starting capacity.
     
  18. Norbert

    Norbert TSLA will win

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    So far, the texts don't seem to mention the weight of the battery, only the total vehicle weight being less than 1500 kg. So we can't say much about the battery itself, except that it was tested for safety in various ways, where it apparently did well (does not accelerate fire, for example).

    454.82 kilometers is about 283 miles, and achieving this with a pack of about 63 kWh equates to about 223 Wh/mile, but says more about the EV conversion than about the battery. (The pack in the 2010 record-claiming drive was said to have 98.8 kWh, and a similar EV conversion was said to have achieved about 372 miles with this larger pack, which equates to about 266 Wh/mile).

    The point of the test was to demonstrate that the battery is capable of enabling an EV to travel a certain range meeting some official specification. The test showed that the combination of battery and EV conversion exceeded the specified minimal range by a good amount.

    I think most of us where looking for an independent verification for the energy density of the battery, which this test doesn't seem to give us.
     
  19. Eberhard

    Eberhard #421 Model S #S32

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,143
    Location:
    Germany
    the only problem is see: yesterday was first of april
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC