Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Martyn1981

I feel a bit bad / naughty posting this, as I don't want to slag off ICEV's, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

So Tesla has had lots of news about a small number of fires. The Chevy Bolt made the news regularly for fires, and the recall of all of the vehicles for battery swops. But Ford has had a large number of recalls, just this year, affecting PHEV's and ICEV's, but news is thin, very little on Google, and apparently on US media too.

So this year recalls were 345k, then 40K expanded to 66k, and Friday another 100k.

This has reached the point where owners of certain vehicles have been advised not to park in the house (garage), and park away from anything, including other vehicles.

So ....... kinda good news for BEV's, in an unpleasant way, as they don't have a serious issue, just that not all news is equal, and new technology always gets more coverage, which is perfectly understandable, if not balanced.

FIRE RISK: Ford Tells 200,000 SUV Owners To Park Outside

Ford is telling owners of some of its most popular, current, internal combustion powered SUVs to park their vehicles outside after a series of engine fires that happened even when the ignition switches were off.

Back in May, Ford recalled nearly 40,000 Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator SUVs after telling owners to park them outdoors and away from homes and other buildings. On Friday, the company expanded that recall to cover more than 66,000 vehicles from the 2021 model year after getting reports of five more fires — and that’s not even the half of it. The company also announced Friday that it’s recalling yet another 100,000 SUVs in the US alone for. A. Different. Problem. That also causes engine fires.

And, if all this sounds familiar, it’s because Ford issued a similar recall for the Ford Bronco and Escape platform twins earlier this year. That recall, also related to fires, impacted fully 345,000 SUV owners, and is not included in the 200-ish thousand vehicle recall reported, above.

CKhalvashi

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

Grumpy_chap said:

orrery said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Even better would be research and development of energy storage device that doesn't require precious and limited material to be mined.  Finding more of this material probably delays the time that a sustainable energy storage device is reality.

You mean in addition to liquid air batteries and sand batteries, that use, well, er, air and sand. Or for longer term storage create hydrogen and for even longer term storage convert it to methanol.

It isn't R&D we need (we do need more R&D of course), it is simple engineering to build it out in volume.

Are any of those viable to power an EV?  That was the context of the comment, in line with the subject matter of the thread.

Martyn1981 said:

So, it seems there may be a Tesla Model Y testing with much larger range, perhaps 500 miles. 

Personally, I'd suggest 500 miles is massive overkill for a car (unless towing regularly), better to just supercharge after 200-300 miles on a long run, rather than pay extra, and carry more weight.

You may be correct.

It may also be what is needed to allay fears of range anxiety and facilitate the conversion from ICE to EV, at least in the minds of some.

Better charging infrastructure is what's needed, not bigger batteries.  That would use less rare minerals too. 

When you say 'rare minerals', do you mean rare in the sense that demand is growing fast, so supply needs to be scaled up, akin to petrol (crude oil) being rare when cars started to roll out? Or do you mean rare as in rare earth minerals, as this doesn't really apply to BEV's?

Cobalt often gets mentioned now, but (weirdly) not previously, despite the oil refineries using it to produce petrol and diesel. But batts don't have to use Cobalt, LFP's for instance don't use it, and they are the most common battery type now.

Cobalt and Lithium are recyclable. Redwood Materials tends to be the go to for news lately, and yesterday they made the news with VW:

Volkswagen Group taps JB Straubel’s Redwood Materials for battery recycling in US

This morning, Volkswagen Group of America (VWGoA) announced a collaboration with Redwood Materials, Inc. to implement a battery-recycling supply chain in the United States for Volkswagen- and Audi-branded EVs. The collab represents VW’s commitment to sustainability in the United States and beyond while simultaneously expanding Redwood’s closed-loop battery supply chain.

I wasn't really being specific and probably used the term incorrectly. My point is that, assuming resources and manufacturing capacity for batteries are finite, having long range EVs and a poor public charging infrastructure may not the best way of getting to universal BEV adoption.  I may be wrong but perhaps more, smaller, shorter range, EVs along with a better public charging infrastructure will get us there faster and cleaner.  I know that's going to be more difficult in terms of public acceptance but it's going to be a long time before everyone with an ICE car now has a 300 mile plus range EV. 

I've said this several times but as a motorcyclist, I'm happy to travel all over the UK and Europe on a vehicle with a 150 mile range.  

Followed a Zoe the other morning on German plates, so you're not the only one.

My Ioniq will be making its first trip to Poland soon in addition. Charge time is perfect for a toilet and coffee break

CKhalvashi

Martyn1981 said:

I feel a bit bad / naughty posting this, as I don't want to slag off ICEV's, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

So Tesla has had lots of news about a small number of fires. The Chevy Bolt made the news regularly for fires, and the recall of all of the vehicles for battery swops. But Ford has had a large number of recalls, just this year, affecting PHEV's and ICEV's, but news is thin, very little on Google, and apparently on US media too.

So this year recalls were 345k, then 40K expanded to 66k, and Friday another 100k.

This has reached the point where owners of certain vehicles have been advised not to park in the house (garage), and park away from anything, including other vehicles.

So ....... kinda good news for BEV's, in an unpleasant way, as they don't have a serious issue, just that not all news is equal, and new technology always gets more coverage, which is perfectly understandable, if not balanced.

FIRE RISK: Ford Tells 200,000 SUV Owners To Park Outside

Ford is telling owners of some of its most popular, current, internal combustion powered SUVs to park their vehicles outside after a series of engine fires that happened even when the ignition switches were off.

Back in May, Ford recalled nearly 40,000 Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator SUVs after telling owners to park them outdoors and away from homes and other buildings. On Friday, the company expanded that recall to cover more than 66,000 vehicles from the 2021 model year after getting reports of five more fires — and that’s not even the half of it. The company also announced Friday that it’s recalling yet another 100,000 SUVs in the US alone for. A. Different. Problem. That also causes engine fires.

And, if all this sounds familiar, it’s because Ford issued a similar recall for the Ford Bronco and Escape platform twins earlier this year. That recall, also related to fires, impacted fully 345,000 SUV owners, and is not included in the 200-ish thousand vehicle recall reported, above.

How many of these vehicles have actually caught fire though?

The number will likely be in the single/double digits (out of so far 545000 cars) and Ford will be working to reassure owners.

I'd argue that statistically the risk is virtually non-existant.

Solarchaser

To go a little against the grain here, I think my long range tm3 with a theoretical 360miles would be much better with 450miles as in reality I'm getting 280, and so it would be better with a real 350miles.
My reason for that is that its quite common to do 300 miles in a day as a business user, so I have to charge.
Now the truth is that its not really been a problem charging, most of the English hospitals and Scottish uni's I visit have chargers, and they are 70% of the time free, but as EV's become more popular, so will the charging spots, and so more chance I'll have to deliberately stop on my homeward journey rather than topping up while working.

That is me using it as a business user though, those using for social/domestic/pleasure, surely 200 miles is plenty?

As an aside, much has been talked about teslas and their vampire losses, so just a real world example.
I parked in Manchester airport for 10 days, without sentry mode on.
I left the car at 75% and returned after the ten days to find it at 74%
So if its 70kwh useable, 1% of that is 700w, over 10 days is 70w/ day or around 3w/ hour, so I'll be quite confident in leaving it for an extended period without concerning myself with vampires, or any other such undeads 🤔

shinytop

Solarchaser said:

To go a little against the grain here, I think my long range tm3 with a theoretical 360miles would be much better with 450miles as in reality I'm getting 280, and so it would be better with a real 350miles.
My reason for that is that its quite common to do 300 miles in a day as a business user, so I have to charge.
Now the truth is that its not really been a problem charging, most of the English hospitals and Scottish uni's I visit have chargers, and they are 70% of the time free, but as EV's become more popular, so will the charging spots, and so more chance I'll have to deliberately stop on my homeward journey rather than topping up while working.

That is me using it as a business user though, those using for social/domestic/pleasure, surely 200 miles is plenty?

As an aside, much has been talked about teslas and their vampire losses, so just a real world example.
I parked in Manchester airport for 10 days, without sentry mode on.
I left the car at 75% and returned after the ten days to find it at 74%
So if its 70kwh useable, 1% of that is 700w, over 10 days is 70w/ day or around 3w/ hour, so I'll be quite confident in leaving it for an extended period without concerning myself with vampires, or any other such undeads 🤔

You sound like one of the few users who need a 300 mile plus range.  But if that 70% were 90% or more, maybe 280 would be enough?  

How long does it take to add another 100 miles on a Tesla?

CKhalvashi

Solarchaser said:

To go a little against the grain here, I think my long range tm3 with a theoretical 360miles would be much better with 450miles as in reality I'm getting 280, and so it would be better with a real 350miles.
My reason for that is that its quite common to do 300 miles in a day as a business user, so I have to charge.
Now the truth is that its not really been a problem charging, most of the English hospitals and Scottish uni's I visit have chargers, and they are 70% of the time free, but as EV's become more popular, so will the charging spots, and so more chance I'll have to deliberately stop on my homeward journey rather than topping up while working.

That is me using it as a business user though, those using for social/domestic/pleasure, surely 200 miles is plenty?

As an aside, much has been talked about teslas and their vampire losses, so just a real world example.
I parked in Manchester airport for 10 days, without sentry mode on.
I left the car at 75% and returned after the ten days to find it at 74%
So if its 70kwh useable, 1% of that is 700w, over 10 days is 70w/ day or around 3w/ hour, so I'll be quite confident in leaving it for an extended period without concerning myself with vampires, or any other such undeads 🤔

Completely get you with this as another business user, although 90% of the time I'm fine and the other 10% it's a minor inconvenience that I'm happy to live with.

The Ioniq with no air conditioning etc will do about 150 miles of motorway driving to 90% of charge (at 65-ish) with no air conditioning and in general at the moment is averaging about 120 miles of commuting using air conditioning etc (which it's notable yesterday wasn't used and the range 2 ways/83 miles was 32% of the battery starting from a full charge).

A planned trip to Poland has actually not required too much planning. The Ionity network has good reviews, however I'm going to need to charge in Dresden for the final 250km as within a single network there's nothing the other side of the Polish border. Still looks like it's cheaper overall than flying in some circumstances (we have some equipment in the UK at the moment for repair and upgrade which would need to go back in 2 suitcases due to weight, so not a cheap ticket), and probably better for the environment too.

A coffee/toilet break every 2 hours seems a good idea and I've actually become quite good with a low battery at adapting the driving style to make sure home/office are achieved, despite knowing running the car on a low battery isn't a good idea.

Solarchaser

shinytop said:

Solarchaser said:

To go a little against the grain here, I think my long range tm3 with a theoretical 360miles would be much better with 450miles as in reality I'm getting 280, and so it would be better with a real 350miles.
My reason for that is that its quite common to do 300 miles in a day as a business user, so I have to charge.
Now the truth is that its not really been a problem charging, most of the English hospitals and Scottish uni's I visit have chargers, and they are 70% of the time free, but as EV's become more popular, so will the charging spots, and so more chance I'll have to deliberately stop on my homeward journey rather than topping up while working.

That is me using it as a business user though, those using for social/domestic/pleasure, surely 200 miles is plenty?

As an aside, much has been talked about teslas and their vampire losses, so just a real world example.
I parked in Manchester airport for 10 days, without sentry mode on.
I left the car at 75% and returned after the ten days to find it at 74%
So if its 70kwh useable, 1% of that is 700w, over 10 days is 70w/ day or around 3w/ hour, so I'll be quite confident in leaving it for an extended period without concerning myself with vampires, or any other such undeads 🤔

You sound like one of the few users who need a 300 mile plus range.  But if that 70% were 90% or more, maybe 280 would be enough?  

How long does it take to add another 100 miles on a Tesla?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about 90%

If using a public 50kw charger, probably around 40 mins or so. 
On the superchargers maybe 15 mins.

shinytop

Solarchaser said:

shinytop said:

Solarchaser said:

To go a little against the grain here, I think my long range tm3 with a theoretical 360miles would be much better with 450miles as in reality I'm getting 280, and so it would be better with a real 350miles.
My reason for that is that its quite common to do 300 miles in a day as a business user, so I have to charge.
Now the truth is that its not really been a problem charging, most of the English hospitals and Scottish uni's I visit have chargers, and they are 70% of the time free, but as EV's become more popular, so will the charging spots, and so more chance I'll have to deliberately stop on my homeward journey rather than topping up while working.

That is me using it as a business user though, those using for social/domestic/pleasure, surely 200 miles is plenty?

As an aside, much has been talked about teslas and their vampire losses, so just a real world example.
I parked in Manchester airport for 10 days, without sentry mode on.
I left the car at 75% and returned after the ten days to find it at 74%
So if its 70kwh useable, 1% of that is 700w, over 10 days is 70w/ day or around 3w/ hour, so I'll be quite confident in leaving it for an extended period without concerning myself with vampires, or any other such undeads 🤔

You sound like one of the few users who need a 300 mile plus range.  But if that 70% were 90% or more, maybe 280 would be enough?  

How long does it take to add another 100 miles on a Tesla?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about 90%

If using a public 50kw charger, probably around 40 mins or so. 
On the superchargers maybe 15 mins.

The same as you when you said chargers at the places you work were free 70% of the time.  I was making the point that more (and faster) chargers could obviate the need for long range EVs. 

Solarchaser

Ahh I understand,  yeah I suppose if the charging was more reliable, then the range would likely be enough 

Martyn1981

Solarchaser said:

shinytop said:

Solarchaser said:

To go a little against the grain here, I think my long range tm3 with a theoretical 360miles would be much better with 450miles as in reality I'm getting 280, and so it would be better with a real 350miles.
My reason for that is that its quite common to do 300 miles in a day as a business user, so I have to charge.
Now the truth is that its not really been a problem charging, most of the English hospitals and Scottish uni's I visit have chargers, and they are 70% of the time free, but as EV's become more popular, so will the charging spots, and so more chance I'll have to deliberately stop on my homeward journey rather than topping up while working.

That is me using it as a business user though, those using for social/domestic/pleasure, surely 200 miles is plenty?

As an aside, much has been talked about teslas and their vampire losses, so just a real world example.
I parked in Manchester airport for 10 days, without sentry mode on.
I left the car at 75% and returned after the ten days to find it at 74%
So if its 70kwh useable, 1% of that is 700w, over 10 days is 70w/ day or around 3w/ hour, so I'll be quite confident in leaving it for an extended period without concerning myself with vampires, or any other such undeads 🤔

You sound like one of the few users who need a 300 mile plus range.  But if that 70% were 90% or more, maybe 280 would be enough?  

How long does it take to add another 100 miles on a Tesla?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about 90%

If using a public 50kw charger, probably around 40 mins or so. 
On the superchargers maybe 15 mins.

***Wooo, Wooo, Wooo, PEDANTRY ALERT*** [That's my impression of an alarm going off.]

Just to say, in the best conditions, with the battery close to zero, and at a V3 charger, you might manage ~6mins, as they can charge at 250kW till about 30%.

Sadly, both times I tried to get a screenshot of the car charging at 250kW and 1,000mph*, I arrived for a top up with approx 30% in the battery, so only got 200kW / 800mph charge rate.

V3's have been dialled up a tad with some seeing just over 250kW now. New V4 chargers to come out with about 350kW, and the V3's to get bumped to ~320kW. But that doesn't mean that current cars will be able to charge faster (unconfirmed for now), but bigger pack vehicles (can anyone say 'Cybertruck') will benefit.

This is due to the fact that BEV pickups have poorer efficiency, and hence need larger packs to increase range, but that still means for any given distance, v's a BEV car, they will need 50% to 100% more leccy, which will (or would) make their charging sessions much longer.

*London forum friend has sent me pics of his TM3 charging at 250kW and 1,000mph. Grrrrrr.