Tesla Bjorn covered some of this in his reviews of the Audi e-tron. Since I don't own one, I don't recall what he said, but they all have some measure of temperature sensitivity. I met a fellow Model 3 owner a few months ago who was moving his car between 5 or 6 charging stations before I stopped him and asked him what he was doing. He had no idea that charging from dead cold would take extra time - he believed there was something wrong with the charging stations. That day it was a good 15 degrees below zero. I told him to leave it plugged in, and it would build up slowly. It took a good 4-5 minutes to start incrementing.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Debunking Audi's ‘sustained power beats top power’
- Thread starter cizUK
- Start date
Tesla Bjorn covered some of this in his reviews of the Audi e-tron. Since I don't own one, I don't recall what he said, but they all have some measure of temperature sensitivity. I met a fellow Model 3 owner a few months ago who was moving his car between 5 or 6 charging stations before I stopped him and asked him what he was doing. He had no idea that charging from dead cold would take extra time - he believed there was something wrong with the charging stations. That day it was a good 15 degrees below zero. I told him to leave it plugged in, and it would build up slowly. It took a good 4-5 minutes to start incrementing.
So I think a key part to this whole claim is being overlooked (except for Candleflame): The audi is 'locking' 12% of its battery, so the 0-100% charge looks to have less of a taper than other cars do. But this is a nice "appearance" at an added cost of unused battery. If you adjust the actual battery amounts (8% at the bottom and 4% at the top according to the article), the curve shifts to the left, bringing it closer to all the other cars in question. Also peak vs. sustained shouldn't be the question, it should be the area under the curve, ie how much energy do you get put into your car over time, and just eyeballing it, I think Tesla's still got a leg up here.
Also, would you rather your car secretly have 12% more range that you cannot use, but that the usable range is maintained for more years, or to have access to the majority of the battery but accept that your range will slowly drop over the years? Odd choice on audi's behalf to lock so much of the battery.
Also, would you rather your car secretly have 12% more range that you cannot use, but that the usable range is maintained for more years, or to have access to the majority of the battery but accept that your range will slowly drop over the years? Odd choice on audi's behalf to lock so much of the battery.
I've seen the numbers in other places as well, but here you go.
Etron 57 cu ft - etron cargo space - Google Search
Model S 60.2 cu ft - model s cargo space - Google Search
Model X 87.8 cu ft - model x cargo space - Google Search
I'm not finding the Model 3 right now, but I've read that the cargo space with the rear seats folded down is 55 cu ft.
I think Audi is being conservative with respect to battery degradation and will be able to mask it, if required, by using some of the top and bottom buffers instead of it affecting range. There's logic here, especially since those buffers allow the car to charge at a more uniform rate. Basically, it'll be less for the customer to be concerned about. All of this is at the expense of range, so they're apparently valuing a simpler customer experience over vehicle range.
I might as well drop these graphs here. They compare the theorized, optimum charging of the upper trim Model Y's to the e-tron, I-PACE and EQC 400. Note the two bottom graphs are different: one starts at 20% and the other at 0% battery level. The e-tron clearly charges faster than the Model Y, if it's on a >175kW charger and the Model Y is on an Urban Supercharger. Otherwise, the Model Y has the advantage when on either an unshared V2 or a V3 Supercharger below 60%.
A realistic scenario is a 20 min charge from 20%. The e-tron gains 116 mi, while Model Y LR AWD could gain 156 mi, or 34% more.
Eno Deb
Active Member
Hm, that seems hard to believe. I am very familiar with the headroom in the Model S, and it's definitely less than what I experienced in the Etron at the demo event in SF a few months ago. But even if the numbers are accurate, the Etron (like most SUVs) also has more ground clearance which also affects aerodynamics. So I still believe it's more appropriate to compare it to the Model X rather than a sedan when it comes to efficiency. The closest comparison would probably be the Model Y, but we don't have reliable numbers for that yet.
CarlK
Active Member
More than that it's very technically incompetent. A lot of its "takes" of engineering and technical stuff are total nonsense.
You come across as a VW short-seller and FUD spreader!
Good question.
From a customer relationship perspective, adding buffer to maintain advertised driving range would be a good thing, but at a cost. It would certainly avoid the threads like the ones on this forum were people are complaining that they can't charge their TM3's to the promised 310 mile range after a few days in service.
Personally, I would prefer to have access to the full battery capacity, and self-police charging to 90% and not discharging below 10%. But that's just my preference.
a
I'd say we have very reliable numbers for the Model Y. The design is done and Tesla is advertising the cargo space at 66 cu ft.
Model Y | Tesla
The Etron has a maximum ground clearance of 8.8", 8.2" default, and the Model S max is 7.3", 6" default. Both vehicles get the extra ground clearance due to air suspension settings. The Model X on the highest suspension setting shows 9" for "very high, without skis", and 8" for "very high, with skis"; at least that's what it shows in the manual. On the sales page it shows a maximum ground clearance of 8.3". I don't know why skis would make a difference, but I'm sure someone around here does.
P.S. I just checked the Model S manual and it shows 4.6" to 6.3" of ground clearance. I wonder which numbers are right.
Last edited:
Eno Deb
Active Member
Point taken. I'm sure the Model Y interior will be more spacious than the Etron's (but by then there may be another SUV built on the dedicated MEB platform). But in terms of efficiency the exterior dimensions count.
(LxWxH)
Model X: 198x79x66
Etron: 193x76.2x63.6
Model 3: 185x73x56
The aerodynamic cross section of the Etron is closer to the X than the 3 (due to the height). I couldn't find the dimensions for the Y.
Again, Etron more similar to X than S. Curios to see what the Y will have. In the pictures it looks low for an SUV, but that can be deceiving.The Etron has a maximum ground clearance of 8.8", 8.2" default, and the Model S max is 7.3", 6" default. Both vehicles get the extra ground clearance due to air suspension settings. The Model X on the highest suspension setting shows 9" for "very high, without skis", and 8" for "very high, with skis"; at least that's what it shows in the manual. On the sales page it shows a maximum ground clearance of 8.3". I don't know why skis would make a difference, but I'm sure someone around here does.
The owners manual shows the Model 3 as having 5.5" of ground clearance. I would guess that the Model Y will be a little higher, but I wouldn't expect too much. They'll probably need to offer an air suspension for it before we see significantly more ground clearance.
Ludalicious
Active Member
So what Audi has perfected battery and addressed all battery degradation that other manufacturers have leaned with real world results over the last 10 years... GTFO with these claims. I hope you don't base all your claims o
Due to it being available in a 7 seater. I would assume it will have air suspension to accommodate the extra weight
Due to it being available in a 7 seater. I would assume it will have air suspension to accommodate the extra weight
It's likely that it's not so much that their battery chemistry is more finicky to temperature compared to other manufacturers, it's that their battery protection heuristics are extremely restrictive in terms of charging a cold battery. That's because the evidence favors the idea that aggressive charging of a cold battery deteriorates its longevity. In any case, totally aside from the questionable claim that Audi's charging protocol is faster compared to version 3 supercharging, there is reason to believe that their battery protection heuristics may be inferior. Or at least that they may be taking risks with battery longevity that Tesla has decided not to take. Tesla's track record on battery protection is pretty good so I'll take their scheme in the absence of more definitive information to the contrary.
The companies are definitely using different protection heuristics and that's based on their relative experience with the different chemistries involved. The Model 3 batteries are NCA with about <3% Cobalt where the e-tron is probably NMC 811 with 12% Cobalt (my guess based partially on this). VW's real-world experience with NMC 811 is low, therefore they're incentivized to have high pack margins to reduce risk. It's my understanding that the low Cobalt cells in the Model 3 are more sensitive to temperature when charging than NMC 811 or 622 chemistry. I can't find a source for that however, so consider this "just some guy online said".
Nevertheless, when comparing the VW and Tesla charging profiles, it's important to keep in mind that besides battery capacity, cell chemistry and company experience and confidence with that chemistry are different between the companies. I don't know which company is being more conservative based on how all these factors stack up.
sreams
Member
One could argue that the e-Tron should be compared to the Model S (not the X), because they have similar cargo capacity.
Sure, you could argue that. However, I think if you put an e-Tron next to a line of 3 / S / X and asked a lay person which vehicle is the most similar to the e-Tron, most would say the X.
Since the point of the comparison is evaluating relative speeds of battery charging, what models those batteries fit into is kinda irrelevant.
FWIW, Audi/VW are using (when it can get them) LG Chem as its battery supplier.
Same as GM's Bolt.
Report: Battery shortages lead to Audi E-tron production delays
Tesla Model 3 & Chevy Bolt Battery Packs Examined | CleanTechnica
There were reports that some of the delays and battery price hikes were due to complications at LG Chem transitioning from NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) 622 to NMC 811.
More info on NMC batteries here:
Exciting Developments In NMC 811 Lithium Battery Technology | CleanTechnica
a
If you subscribe to Audi's assertion that sustained kW is more important than peak kW or net km/hour charging, then sure, forget about the car and only talk about the battery.
However, the point of my post comparing ABRP results was that the current Supercharger network already allows all three Tesla vehicles to complete a full day's trip in less time than you can in an e-Tron with their allegedly faster charging system. Only the now obsolete Model X takes more charging time and total trip time than the e-Tron.
Similar threads
