Electric cars

Gloomendoom

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Apologies for laziness, and possible wild goose chase, but I thought something had happened recently about rapidgate - possibly the car's computer over-reacting and thus causing the slower charge rate.

So it might (you'll need to news hunt) be a software issue that can be easily(?) resolved.

Best of luck.

I'd never heard of rapidgate before reading the post above and have just spent ten minutes reading up on it. I haven't seen anything about a simple resolution yet.

AdrianC

AnotherJoe wrote: »

You said "second cars dont contribute much to pollution so they dont count" but you must have been thinking of CO2 only, i suspect they contribute the vast majority of local NOx and particulate poisons than your road warrior car traipsing up the motorway

If you re-read the post you replied to, I also made comments about the total unsuitability of any form of private car for urban centres - which is where the very localised NOx/particulate issues lie. Far better public transport is the right answer there.

or the large lorries (for which announcements about electrification are coming thick and fast now.

...and have been for quite a few years, from companies who actually know what they're doing and aren't trying to reinvent the wheel at the same time.
https://electrek.co/2018/02/21/mercedes-benz-all-electric-truck-eactros/
https://www.scania.com/uk/en/home/experience-scania/news-and-events/news/2017/06/electrification-project.html
https://www.scania.com/group/en/scania-has-created-a-very-good-battery-bus/
https://www.truck.man.eu/de/en/eTruck.html


...but they don't feed into the preferred narrative.

almillar

I thought the chemistry of EV batteries was evolving all the time.

No, not outside the lab anyway. Teslas, and any electric car on sale in the UK, is running on 3-ish volt Lithium Ion chemistry. Different packaging, density, cooling solutions, but there's been NO evolution in the chemistry on the road.

rapidgate - car slows down charging, to keep the temperature down. Yes, a software adjustment could help with this, but only so much. 40kWh has been squeezed in where 30kWh used to be, and no active cooling has been added. Other cars will have fans that kick in, at least, when the batteries are warm (driving fast heats them, charging them fast heats them, so a long, motorway based journey in the summer would be the biggest trigger). So there's only so much the software can do. Any other car I know of having active cooling points me to thinking that charging speed is still going to be compromised. Only an issue for motorway munchers though.

AnotherJoe

Car_54 wrote: »

What part of Adrians statement "EVs are not quite (but it's close) ready to replace ICVs yet, for many people's primary-use vehicles" is not true?

The part thats not true, is the implication of that statement, by omission, that EVs are not suitable for many right now, when they clearly are.

eg lets say "many" is 30% in Adrian's statement. Without mentioning that (for sake of argument) its already suitable for a different 30%, it gives the impression its suitable for no one right now.

AdrianC

That's some seriously weird logic.

"Some X is not true, ergo no X is true."

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

That's some seriously weird logic.

"Some X is not true, ergo no X is true."

Hi

Odd point to make really as it's pretty much the same logic you've been using on this thread to post anti-EV propaganda for ages ... 'EVs don't currently suit everyone & aren't currently built in comparatively high volumes, ergo EVs can't currently be viable solution for anyone' is all we seem to get & it's as regular as clockwork, despite both knowledgeable individuals & current EV users continually challenging the points made, it's just a like a scratched record .... 'rubbish EV' .. click .. 'rubbish EV' .. click .... ad infinitum!

Talking about records & EVs, on the decent news front it looks like Tesla are now sustaining Model 3 production at around 1000 units/day ... not bad for a new manufacturer & model breaking into the volume-build automotive sector .... on a roughly comparable disruptive technology change it took Ford around 7 years to achieve that build rate with their Model T ... :whistle:

HTH
Z

AdrianC

zeupater wrote: »

Odd point to make really as it's pretty much the same logic you've been using on this thread to post anti-EV propaganda for ages

Please don't continue to blatantly, deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent what I've said very clearly multiple times.

Talking about records & EVs, on the decent news front it looks like Tesla are now sustaining Model 3 production at around 1000 units/day

Finally, but not quite. The rolling week ending yesterday was indeed the first to hit 5,000 cars, but they're working seven days, so just over 700 cars/day. They're about a month or so behind even last November's target for this mark - and last week's production is north of 10% of all Model 3s built so far.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

... not bad for a new manufacturer & model breaking into the volume-build automotive sector .... on a roughly comparable disruptive technology change it took Ford around 7 years to achieve that build rate with their Model T ... :whistle:

Mmm. But Ford were "inventing" (it was already the thick end of a millennium old, even in vehicle manufacture) the moving assembly line to do so, at a time when global annual automobile production was barely over 1% of today's 70m, and the Model T formed half of the total number of cars ever built.


And, if we're drawing parallels, let's not forget that Ford's inability to deliver the Model T's replacement nearly bankrupted them a decade later.

gzoom

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, we've done the 2170 LiIon cells before. Several times.

BTW, that article falls down on the very first sentence - "Tesla's next generation 2170 cells". They aren't. They're Panasonic cells (the "gigafactory" is a Panasonic/Tesla JV, remember), and Samsung announced production within a week of Panasonic at the start of last year. The Model S and Model X still use the ubiquitous 18650, though.

B'sides, the only difference is a minor one of cell dimensions - 21mm diameter x 70mm long, rather than 18mm diameter x 65mm long - there's a clue in the naming convention. The chemistry is the same, as is the nominal voltage (3.7v). The battery pack itself is just, as I said, a shedload of cells packaged.

So you essentially think all batteries are the same because the casing is the same size, thats the kind of amazing logic you just cannot reason with :rotfl::rotfl:.

AdrianC

gzoom wrote: »

So you essentially think all batteries are the same because the casing is the same size, thats the kind of amazing logic you just cannot reason with :rotfl::rotfl:.

We're talking about an industry-standard size of cell here... 18650 3.7v LiIon cells... They're utterly ubiquitous. Yes, they vary in capacity - across a reasonably narrow and widely-available range. This is not rocket science. These are your bog-standard cells as used in everything from Model S to eCiggies, toothbrushes, drills.


2170 is a new LiIon cell format, no more than that - one of many - and is desirable here simply because it can give slightly greater packaging scope in terms of power density. They're already available unbranded - not exactly much in the way of great USPs...


Yes, there are various slightly different LiIon battery chemistries - but LiCoO2 is the only one in commercial production to date, simply because currently it has the highest energy density as well as the lowest cost. New chemistries may well come, and there's several already on offer, but it'll take a while before production is on mainstream commercially-viable scales. If just one manufacturer gets them to production, then potential customers have a very difficult decision to make - do they get held to ransom, or do they hold off? Remember, battery back design is dependent on cell choice, and the battery pack needs to be packaged into the car. Not easy to change once the decision's made.

gzoom

AdrianC wrote: »

We're talking about an industry-standard size of cell here... 18650 3.7v LiIon cells... They're utterly ubiquitous

What can I say, if you don't understand the fundamental importance of cell chemistry to longevity/capacity than there is little point in trying to make you understand .