Dan Detweiler
Active Member
@alseTrick I don't see how you could possibly disagree with a statement that encourages you to make your own choice. Seems rather trollish to me.
Dan
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon's "350kW... a children's toy" tweet and the Model 3
- Thread starter Bangor Bob
- Start date
Dan
deonb
Active Member
Why would you join a forum consisting of Tesla owners, if you're just going to dismiss the experiences of Tesla owners as invalid?
Here are a few things that I think most Tesla owners who have done significant road trips will agree on:
a) Having more/longer stops makes the trip less tiring: You spend more time recovering after a get-there-itis trip than you lose by stopping. I've driven from San Francisco to Seattle in a Tesla, and threw a BBQ when I got to Seattle. I can't imagine ever having done that in an ICE. We make that trip frequently, and before the Tesla I would just crash when I get home - won't even unload. Now we unload, do laundry, cook food, even watch a movie after we arrive. Technically the trip is 3 hours longer... but it doesn't matter. I also know for sure that you won't believe me (or all the other Tesla owners that will tell you the same), until you've actually tried this.
b) Faster stops won't help a lot - fewer stops will: You have more stops in a Tesla than in an ICE, that's for sure. If you travel with kids or dogs, the charge time is almost irrelevant - you spend more time hoarding them around than you do charging. Most of the time the Superchargers end up waiting for you rather than the other way around anyway. There is also fixed overhead getting to & from the Superchargers.
c) 350kW won't make a huge difference: You hit that charge taper really quickly. Unless you drive on the edge of your battery capacity - which is stressful, you'll arrive with 50 miles left and from there you'll hit the charge taper within about 10 minutes. With a 350kW that 10 minute untapered period drops to 3 minutes. So you save 7 minutes overall... which means a 30 minute stop becomes a 23 minute stop. Ehhh. I wouldn't pay money for that differene.
d) Most Supercharger problems are addressed by: "Build more Superchargers":
E.g. you'd think bigger batteries are needed to have fewer stops. But in fact, more Superchargers will also achieve this. It would mean you can use more of your battery. Currently you pretty much have to make all the stops - it would be nice if you can skip one if you have e.g. 80 miles left. Similarly, a lot of Supercharger sites suck, and isn't places I would want to spend time at. Again solved by building more Superchargers in more places.
e) Passengers feel different: To them sitting in a car and sitting in a Starbucks is not much different. To the driver however, it is.
I think 350kW is important because it sends a powerful (albeit somewhat inaccurate) marketing message. And it will help with local charging as long as Tesla also start charging for tapered mode - like they now do for idle mode. But on an actual road trip... there are bigger, more easily addressed problems that will actually improve the experience a lot more.
Good point, 350+ without improved taper has limited value. I'm sure they are working on taper as well.
A refuel in under 15 minutes would also give each vehicle an additional 3 ZEV credits (from 4 to 7). Depending on the market rate for ZEV credits, that could be worth an additional $9k-$12k per Model 3 sold. So yeah, I'm guessing the goal is to deliver as many vehicles with 500kW+ charging ability. The financial motivation is there.
alseTrick
Active Member
Weird. You literally did not address the thing I said none of you are addressing: It would be great to not spend ~1/3 of your trip sitting still in order to make long distance travel more convenient for everyone.
I mean, that's Musk's stated goal, right? To increase the adoption of EVs. Therefore, bringing travel times down closer to ice times, bringing range up to that of ice vehicles and refueling as quickly as ices is necessary. Evs will never overtake ice otherwise.
Maybe everyone should just use Greyhound. Perhaps you all should be suggesting that instead. After all, based on their schedule, the trip might actually be quicker than driving an EV, and it'll certainly be less stressful since you wouldn't have to actually drive and you'll still get multiple pit stops along the way.
Yea, that's the answer.
I agree with @alseTrick that the best case is that charging is as fast as possible. It satisfies the widest range of people and the widest range of scenarios. I gave an example in another thread of considering a blow-it-out cross-country trip with my daughter when she was unable to fly due to a medical issue. When I ran the numbers on that kind of drive, the charging time penalty was too excessive to make it reasonable. Now, the optimists among us would say that it wasn't reasonable anyway, and the Tesla just helped me see that.. but that's not the point. We need faster charging to free up Supercharger stalls more quickly, to aid in adoption, and to make inflexible trips doable.
I disagree with @alseTrick that the current condition is unacceptable for a good portion of drivers and/or trips. That's just not the case, and isn't supported by the evidence of Tesla drivers taking road trips. Not just enthusiasts, either. I know a Model S owner who has put 90k miles on his Model S in two years, and when I tried to engage him about Tesla, he just kind of shrugged it off. He takes a lot of long trips for work, and just happens to own a Model S. He doesn't much care about Tesla the company or the mission. Anecdotal, but it does show that a layperson can be plenty satisfied with the experience, even when traveling a lot.
I disagree with @alseTrick that the current condition is unacceptable for a good portion of drivers and/or trips. That's just not the case, and isn't supported by the evidence of Tesla drivers taking road trips. Not just enthusiasts, either. I know a Model S owner who has put 90k miles on his Model S in two years, and when I tried to engage him about Tesla, he just kind of shrugged it off. He takes a lot of long trips for work, and just happens to own a Model S. He doesn't much care about Tesla the company or the mission. Anecdotal, but it does show that a layperson can be plenty satisfied with the experience, even when traveling a lot.
alseTrick
Active Member
I came here to discuss the 3, not be force-fed Tesla group think.
I want EVs to be able to drive much more like an ice in terms of range and refueling time. That is more convenient. That is important to myself and most drivers.
That is - again - why I hope the 3 is 400+kW compatible. This is pretty simple stuff.
Longer drive times to make the same trip isn't fun. If you think it is, good for you. Seriously, have at it. But I specifically said I would fly instead of doing long distance interstate travel given current EV options. Why is it current Tesla owners cannot respect that?
The last group of EV adopters/enthusiasts will be the Canonball Runners, those who want to travel 250+ miles from A to B as fast as possible, with as few stops as possible. That's their business and there's no sense in trying to convince them they're wrong.
The physics of EVs make it likely that gasoline engines will always be faster to refuel.
Consider the dream of a 5 min charge for a 100kWh pack.
This equates to a 1200kW charge rate, which is 12C in battery terms -- which is unheard of with the chemistries in use today.
Even assuming a 12C battery were invented to handle that rate of charge, at 400V this would require 3,000 amps. You'd need either a cable the size of a tree-trunk or a room-temperature super conductor...
Something more achievable -- cut that in half for a 10 minute charge and half again for 50kWh, and you get 750 amps @400V, or 375 amps @800V. That's a 300kW charge rate. So, a 10 minute charge would get you about 200 miles.
Most people don't drive more than 250 miles on a regular basis. Most who do drive that distance, on occasion, don't mind stopping for 20-30 minutes. Faster charging is always better, but will have its limits. As for the Model 3, I'm not convinced it'll be able to take the faster charge rate that Musk mentioned because of the physics of NCA chemistry, but hope I'm wrong.
The physics of EVs make it likely that gasoline engines will always be faster to refuel.
Consider the dream of a 5 min charge for a 100kWh pack.
This equates to a 1200kW charge rate, which is 12C in battery terms -- which is unheard of with the chemistries in use today.
Even assuming a 12C battery were invented to handle that rate of charge, at 400V this would require 3,000 amps. You'd need either a cable the size of a tree-trunk or a room-temperature super conductor...
Something more achievable -- cut that in half for a 10 minute charge and half again for 50kWh, and you get 750 amps @400V, or 375 amps @800V. That's a 300kW charge rate. So, a 10 minute charge would get you about 200 miles.
Most people don't drive more than 250 miles on a regular basis. Most who do drive that distance, on occasion, don't mind stopping for 20-30 minutes. Faster charging is always better, but will have its limits. As for the Model 3, I'm not convinced it'll be able to take the faster charge rate that Musk mentioned because of the physics of NCA chemistry, but hope I'm wrong.
Last edited:
deonb
Active Member
If you truly believe that you want cars to forever and always behave like ICE's, then you shouldn't support BEV's - you should support HFC's. Then you still have the privilege of taking it to a gas station on a bi-weekly basis, fill it up to the top when you stop, and pay with a credit card each time you fill up.
BEV's don't work like that. It does not further the EV agenda by spending trillions of research dollars to improve the 5% scenario where ICE's are "better" at, only to have people the day after they get the car realize "Oh, yeah... neat trick, but not actually that important".
Tesla already tried providing the "faster than an ICE recharge" experience with battery swapping - nobody used it.
Tesla can start working on this if they ever get through their 400'000 car backlog and the only people left to market the car to are people who just can't imagine a life without the gas station experience. Until then, I'd rather have them focus on real world scenarios that actually impact EV drivers.
Last edited:
alseTrick
Active Member
EVs need to be "more like ice" in terms of ability to charge faster and have greater range. That is an indisputable fact and is necessary if EVs ever want wide spread adoption. I'm not sure why you keep poo pooing on the obvious.
alseTrick
Active Member
That would be a huge step forward in the adoption of EVs. It's what I've been advocating for.
3Victoria
Active Member
I think this is what is galling. While this is true for you, generallizing to most drivers is assuming too much. Why must EVs match ICE? I don't like being forced to use gas stations, why not insist ICE comes up with home fueling like EV?
EV experience does not equal ICE experience. Pros and cons to both. If fast long distance is most important then choose ICE.
However, I think we all agree faster recharging would be nice (if there is no downside, such as battery damage).
alseTrick
Active Member
We are not talking about local driving. I have specifically and repeatedly said I am talking about long drives on road trips. As such, home charging isn't pertinent to this discussion.
Why should EVs be more like ice? To increase their adoption among the rest of the world (range, refueling time, price are very important to most people...that's not a controversial statement)! And as others have said, so that Tesla can receive the full financial wind fall of the zev credit!
I really feel like people should read what it is that is apparently getting them so riled up before replying to said comments.
If I want to travel long distances while owning a current EV, I'm going to fly. If I'm making a min to moderately lengthy intrastate or intra regional trip, I'll "deal with" the added inconvenience of the slower refueling time and shorter range of current EVs vs ice.
You and I may agree that faster charging would be nicer, but surprisingly there are several who are refusing to even address that issue, despite it being the very basis of this entire discussion.
deonb
Active Member
Because it's not an indisputable fact by any means.
To charge an EV at the speed of an ICE requires battery chemistry that doesn't remotely exist yet.
Rather than waiting for Unobtainium to be discovered (if ever) there are many more realistic scenarios that can happen which will also get people over the mental hurdle of EV ownership without ever providing either faster charging or more range. e.g. Inductive charging on major roadways, or various driverless car scenarios. Maybe even human-occupancy quadcopters.
Like I said - if you really think ICE-level refuel speed is a absolute necessity to adoption, you belong in the HFC camp and not the BEV camp. You would not be alone by a long shot - Toyota agrees with you 100%. Most of us here don't.
Last edited:
IIRC, that "speed bonus" provision goes away for model year 2018, and ZEV credits 2018+ are based solely on vehicle range. Part of why Toyota is abandoning hydrogen.
We were roughly halfway there in 2010.
350kW on a 100kWh pack is a 3.5C charge rate. As it happens, the car I'm driving today (2012 Chevy Volt) will charge the battery at 3.75C during max regen. (60kW on a 16kWh pack). After 10 seconds it reduces the regen to something more like 2.5C, but then a few seconds later it'll ramp back up to 3.75C again if you can find a steep enough, long enough hill. Say an average of 3C. (And it discharges at something north of 7C - 120kW. 150kW in an ELR or > 9C discharge.) That particular battery chemistry is from 2008-2010 and was optimized for power density over energy density. There have been 6-8 years of improvements.
3C charging gets you a 0-80% charge in 16 minutes if your charger can keep up, no matter the pack size. Even at 120kW, Tesla has been treating their batteries with very mild charge rates so far. What do Tesla & Dr. Dahn have up their sleeves for 2017 and the Gigafactory 21-70 cell?
Last edited:
You're right. I had missed that, but just verified that Rapid Refueling bonus credits are gone in 2018. Thanks for the correction.
ccutrer
Active Member
I agree with @deonb. Faster supercharging would be nice, but more critical is larger battery, and more Superchargers. I don't mind the extra stops on a road trip. It's the extra planning you have to do with a BEV that is likely most unpalatable our imagined average ICE driver.
My ideal world would be a 500 mile battery, with Superchargers every 75-100 miles. My "routine" road trip is 6 hours in an ICE, and requires two charging stops with my Tesla. The "uncomfortable" part is that between two of those Superchargers is 150 miles, lots of elevation changes, and an 80mph speed limit. Even charging to 90% plus on a 90D (which takes much longer, and wouldn't be helped by 350kW+ charging), I have to slow down significantly to make the distance. In fact, I don't know if I could make it at all in the freezing and snowy conditions we've been having lately. I'd have to take a 45 minute detour in order to hit an additional supercharger.
So... bigger battery means even in demanding conditions (80mph+; towing a trailer; etc.) there's no worry about hitting your next charging stop. And you get to charge at full speed for a more significant chunk, rarely needing to hit 80%+ anyway.
More chargers is the last piece. I need to be able to pack and go in any direction without needing to plan ahead (or make sure I have a full charge before I leave!). When I'm at say 75 miles left, I'm within 30 miles of a supercharger, and I can stop. Otherwise, I can just keep blowing past them. Right now it's a low-margin and high risk calculation if you can skip a Supercharger.
My ideal world would be a 500 mile battery, with Superchargers every 75-100 miles. My "routine" road trip is 6 hours in an ICE, and requires two charging stops with my Tesla. The "uncomfortable" part is that between two of those Superchargers is 150 miles, lots of elevation changes, and an 80mph speed limit. Even charging to 90% plus on a 90D (which takes much longer, and wouldn't be helped by 350kW+ charging), I have to slow down significantly to make the distance. In fact, I don't know if I could make it at all in the freezing and snowy conditions we've been having lately. I'd have to take a 45 minute detour in order to hit an additional supercharger.
So... bigger battery means even in demanding conditions (80mph+; towing a trailer; etc.) there's no worry about hitting your next charging stop. And you get to charge at full speed for a more significant chunk, rarely needing to hit 80%+ anyway.
More chargers is the last piece. I need to be able to pack and go in any direction without needing to plan ahead (or make sure I have a full charge before I leave!). When I'm at say 75 miles left, I'm within 30 miles of a supercharger, and I can stop. Otherwise, I can just keep blowing past them. Right now it's a low-margin and high risk calculation if you can skip a Supercharger.
3Victoria
Active Member
So, again, different horse for different courses. Some need range, some don't. We have adapted to the benefits of ICE, and therefore think (assume?) that we need all that ICE gives. I am sure that if fast charging comes along, we will all celebrate it, but we do not all feel it is indispensable. Obviously opinions differ.
While super fast charging is great for minority of folks like alseTrick, don't forget that even then its still will not be as fast a chucking gas into a tank.
What it does start to do is become somewhat less effective for food breaks - especially when there is an idle charge for staying parked without charging.
In the end I hope that the Model 3 ships with what ever charging solution allows it to ship roughly on time and roughly on price.
Anything else is pointless.
What it does start to do is become somewhat less effective for food breaks - especially when there is an idle charge for staying parked without charging.
In the end I hope that the Model 3 ships with what ever charging solution allows it to ship roughly on time and roughly on price.
Anything else is pointless.
Similar threads
- Locked
