Debunking Audi's ‘sustained power beats top power’

[miimura]

Seriously, why can't I edit my posts? This is frustrating.

You only have 6 posts. The forum only gives you the privilege of editing after you have accumulated more experience.

 

[sreams]

No, it just means that the OP is trying to prove his point using the wrong arguments. His claim that because Tesla gains more mileage when charging(which I guess is true) means Audi's method of charging is inferior is wrong.

No. It means Audi's package as a whole is inferior. The inefficiency of the vehicle makes faster charging a necessary crutch. No lay person will ever know that Audi is charging faster if they don't see it result in them spending less time at the charger to travel the same distance.

 

[Dana1]

These are just claims at this point. No proven data on longevity of these batteries has been proven. What we do know forsure Teslas approach seems to work.

So the question that should be asked. Who wants to be a test mule?

Pretty much the same folks who bought Teslas the first few years

 

[Dana1]

"... Every 200 miles..."
That would be nice.
I have to stop every 140 miles with my SR+.
ICE freeway range is about 350 miles. For an EV to have similar range the battery size have to be about 180 kwh. (350 wh/ mile @ 80mph)
Will the battery even fit in a model 3? And what about the price? At $200/kwh, it will raise the price by $20000.
The roadster 2's 700 mile range is just unbelievable.

350 wh/mile? Yikes.

 

[SageBrush]

350 wh/mile? Yikes.

He did say 80 mph. Driving at 70 mph would save about 50 Wh/mile

 

[SammichLover]

This is the chart in question that Audi presented. IMHO, Audi should not be comparing their vehicle to the Model 3, the only Tesla vehicle to support 250kW V3 Supercharging, but rather the Model X.

The X is running on old gen tech. That’s not a good comparison there, either.

 

[XmUrF]

No. It means Audi's package as a whole is inferior. The inefficiency of the vehicle makes faster charging a necessary crutch. No lay person will ever know that Audi is charging faster if they don't see it result in them spending less time at the charger to travel the same distance.

Audi's package is inferior, but that is not the point. The claim here is that they don't have faster charging.

As a matter of fact, they do, but this still doesn't prove their way of charging is better because of the bigger battery buffer they have. Still, e-tron charges from 0 to 80% for about 32min, while Model 3 using V3 Supercharger needs ~40min. Audi's buffer is larger, but the capacity in usage is also larger.

SageBrush is correct in his triangle example. However I don't think that just by eyeballing the chart he can make the case that both triangles are equal although I admit he may be right.

BTW constant charging speed has the benefit that it is more predictable.

 

[SammichLover]

Audi's package is inferior, but that is not the point. The claim here is that they don't have faster charging.

As a matter of fact, they do, but this still doesn't prove their way of charging is better because of the bigger battery buffer they have. Still, e-tron charges from 0 to 80% for about 32min, while Model 3 using V3 Supercharger needs ~40min. Audi's buffer is larger, but the capacity in usage is also larger.

SageBrush is correct in his triangle example. However I don't think that just by eyeballing the chart he can make the case that both triangles are equal although I admit he may be right.

BTW constant charging speed has the benefit that it is more predictable.

Charging in kWh talks, charging in miles actually walks.

 

[chronopc]

How many chargers in the US are there that can actually charge the etron at 150kw?

 

[Brando]

side note: Germany put former Audi manager in jail because they feared he would cover up/destroy evidence about diesel emission scandal. Audi caught being dishonest about diesel - why would we expect them to be "honest" about electrics and batteries?

My default position is to doubt, but verify just in case a corporation is actually trying to tell the truth.
Correcting Audi: Tesla Model 3 Charges Over 2 Times Faster Than Audi e-tron | CleanTechnica

another side note: Germany - are they seriously trying to compete with Battery Electric Vehicles?
Another "Tesla Killer" Missing In Action — Volkswagen Group Falls Short (Charts!) | CleanTechnica

 

[SammichLover]

How many chargers in the US are there that can actually charge the etron at 150kw?

By end of year there should be 2015 Tesla SC coverage. It is coming.

 

[sreams]

Audi's package is inferior, but that is not the point. The claim here is that they don't have faster charging.

As a matter of fact, they do, but this still doesn't prove their way of charging is better because of the bigger battery buffer they have. Still, e-tron charges from 0 to 80% for about 32min

Incorrect. Audi locks out a large percentage of the battery. Which means 80% is not 80%. Tesla could do the same to give the appearance of faster charging. Or the car's owner could do it themselves by setting the charge limit to 80% and then charging to 80% of that.

Also, it's been shown that Audi cut/paste the Supercharger V3 graph totally incorrectly in terms of the axis they used. Whether or not that was intentional is another question.

 

[SageBrush]

The claim here is that they don't have faster charging.
As a matter of fact, they do,

The two Physics PhDs that wrote this up over at cleanTechnica disagree with you:

 

[Zoomit]

How many chargers in the US are there that can actually charge the etron at 150kw?

A limited amount, but growing very rapidly. The Electrify America charger stations being rolled typically have 4-8 chargers and most are 150kW with one at 350kW. Technically to get the fastest charge an e-tron driver would want to use the 350kW charger but the difference with using a 150kW unit would be measured in tens of seconds not minutes.

According to this, from @Jeff N, "At least 484 sites with over 2,000 charging dispensers are planned to be open by the end of 2019." That's for EA only so doesn't include other networks now installing 150-175kW charging units. As a comparison, I see 718 Supercharger sites open now in North America according to Supercharge.info/charts.

Edit: according the EA map, they have 180 sites open now, so that's probably at least 700 stalls that can do 150kW.

 

[SageBrush]

and most are

That gives a range of (50% -- 100%] of the total

 

[sreams]

According to this, from @Jeff N, "At least 484 sites with over 2,000 charging dispensers are planned to be open by the end of 2019." That's for EA only so doesn't include other networks now installing 150-175kW charging units. As a comparison, I see 718 Supercharger sites open now in North America according to Supercharge.info/charts.

According to your numbers, EA plans to have an average of 4 charging dispensers per site. 4 is a bare minimum for Supercharger sites. Many have 8-20, and a few have 40.

 

[XmUrF]

Incorrect. Audi locks out a large percentage of the battery. Which means 80% is not 80%. Tesla could do the same to give the appearance of faster charging. Or the car's owner could do it themselves by setting the charge limit to 80% and then charging to 80% of that.

That is true and I already pointed it out. It's even in the citation you included in your post. Tesla also does it but the buffer is smaller. As far as I know the real battery capacity of Model 3 is 80kwh, but the available is 75kwh.

The two Physics PhDs that wrote this up over at cleanTechnica disagree with you:

View attachment 409616

This chart shows added miles per minute and you know very well it's not about that. It's about better charging method. If Audi's is better you all should want it implemented in Tesla because this way Tesla will have even more added miles per minute! What if Tesla don't go for the max 250kw but instead settle for more moderate 160-170kw sustained for a longer period though?

BTW in the same CleanTechnica article where you've got that chart from there are also the charging times I talk in my previous post.

 

[SageBrush]

You know very well it is not about added miles per minute. It's about better charging method.

Look again at the chart. Same car, compared on different charging schemes

 

[Zoomit]

That gives a range of (50% -- 100%] of the total

Not sure I understand your statement, but I think the typical EA rollout includes primarily 150kW units, with one at 350kW and one that also supports CHAdeMO. So a four stall station will have 1x 350kw CCS, 2x 150kW CCS, and 1x 150kW CCS/CHAdeMO. Sites with more stations just increase the 150kW stall quantity.

According to your numbers, EA plans to have an average of 4 charging dispensers per site. 4 is a bare minimum for Supercharger sites. Many have 8-20, and a few have 40.

There are a few 3 stall EA sites but many are 4 stalls and certainly some with 10 or more. Just providing data, not opining here on minimums.

Still, e-tron charges from 0 to 80% for about 32min, while Model 3 using V3 Supercharger needs ~40min.

If Tesla rollouts the V3 charging profile like demoed, the Model 3 charging time from 0-80% will not be 40min. It will be 28 minutes, see previous post.

 

[sreams]

This chart shows added miles per minute and you know very well it's not about that. It's about better charging method. If Audi's is better you all should want it implemented in Tesla because this way Tesla will have even more added miles per minute! What if Tesla don't go for the max 250kw but instead settle for more moderate 160-170kw sustained for a longer period though?

Except that you are going with the very large assumption that most people want to sit around waiting for a 0-80% charge. The way I and many others drive our EVs on long trips, Tesla's method is faster (even if only considering kWh added).