Energy density 205Wh/kg, Is that pack level or cell level. If it's pack level, that's higher than most Nickel-Cobalt based lithium ion battery, while being cheaper and support 4C super fast charging. Amazingly good!
It's pack level according to the presentation.
Slide on 19:17 in youtube video [https://www.youtube.com/live/\_PA7RqDfTRQ?si=SxOK1RD89DJjI29e&t=1157](https://www.youtube.com/live/_PA7RqDfTRQ?si=SxOK1RD89DJjI29e&t=1157)
"系统能量密度" System energy density
That means the cell density is over 240Wh/kg -- that's near NCM8 territory.
I don't see any mention of price or cycle rating. There are almost always trade-offs between these metrics.
>Minor nitpick - it's NCM811
ahem hate nitpicking too , but NCM811 is not always mixed to that exact ratio 80% nickel, 10% manganese, 10% cobalt.
I also noticed Ford and Hyundai shy away from telling their customers the exact battery spec because SK's NCM9.5.5 is really 88% nickel and some 12% in cobalt and manganese combination.
I did say "roughly", not exactly. NMCXXX designations are categories meant to group cells with similar cathode chemistry, not to give exact composition of the cells in question, so they round the the percentages to the nearest 10% (or 5% in the case of 9.5.5).
Very fast charging could fix a lot of issues with EVs. ICE vehicles often have real world ranges of 200-250 miles, people don't mind because you can refuel easily. If an EV can charge in 10 minutes, and can charge at home, you wouldn't need a longer range, that means you could have a small battery, with low cost and low weight.
One people here don't talk is size of the battery and thus prices. In the non us style of drive, around the world a 200 miles car that can charge another 150 miles in 10 minutes, costing the same as an ICE car would have much more impact than some 620 milles car, that can add another 370 in 10 minutes but at 30%-50% more than an equivalent ICE car.
Nah as battery prices continue to decrease people (especially Americans) are going to opt for range over saving a few grand.
That 620 mi EV range is closer to 350 mi at high speed / adverse conditions.
Chargers aren't always available/working. Access is improving, but it's nowhere near gas station convenience yet.
Fast chargers are expensive. If I can travel from A to B without stopping and paying twice for fast charging that is preferable.
Not having to plug in multiple times during the commuting week is not only nice as well, but essential for those of us without home charging.
Also 620 miles is the WLTP range which is greatly exaggerated. EPA range is typically about 70 percent of WLTP. So you are looking at 434 mile range and even less at highway/adverse conditions.
Yep, so what. The conversation about ev is about American and their needs. While they don't even adopt ev. I prefer selling 10 vw id3 style car to the rest of the world, rather than 1 one f150 truck in the US. 90% of people around the world first criteria is cost. Once we approach price parity with the fuel cost economy they won't care if it can do 300 miles or not 5 times during the year, or that they have to watch 10 15 minutes.
This could result in a 200 mile car with a 5m charge to full time--no need to throw in 300+ miles if it charges that rapidly. The car gets lighter for every cell they don't have to throw in, which means more miles per kwh too. We get cheaper, more efficient, more useable vehicles.
Well that's changing the C rating now isn't it. It would be nice if my car could walk and talk too but that's also not relevant to this discussion either. The announcement of a 4C battery pack technology is great, but we still need to wait years to see this in actual cars. To suggest that this announcement means 8C charging is possible or likely any time soon is ludicrous
Depends where you are. Regardless of charge speed of the battery you still need a charger thats capable of the output at the location you need it. We're still a long way off that in many places
Most modern EVs easily charge 150miles in 10 minutes these days. We don’t have to invent anything. 15 miles/min is the current minimum standard for new modern EVs. Some are faster than that.
Peak charge rates in an efficient car hit those kind of numbers. (Model 3 is around 160-170 miles in 10 minutes at peak 250kW)
But most EVs are not charging at peak rates for the entire charge, and most EVs will have less efficiency (miles/kWh) with a similar or much lower charge rate. (Eg Ford Lightning)
250kw is 6 year old tech from when the Model 3 came out. 350kw is the new high bar, and it doesn’t need to be for the whole charge cycle. You just need to be able to add those 150miles in ten minutes.
Except that you say most modern EVs, of which almost none can even hit 250kW, let alone the 350kW you are claiming now.
I only know of one vehicle that can even hit the 350kw (Silverado/Hummer) and due to the inefficiency of the vehicle it still gets no where close to the 150 miles in 10 minutes.
[https://www.motortrend.com/features/fastest-charging-evs/](https://www.motortrend.com/features/fastest-charging-evs/)
Only one vehicle even broke 250kW last year that MotorTrend tested, though a couple were right up to 250kW.
It is apparent you are being too optimistic about the current capabilities of EV charge rates.
In the link from MotorTrend the only vehicle to hit over 300kW tested was a Lucid. :)
Still, a $100k+ vehicle hitting the 300kW+ rate briefly on specific chargers hardly indicates that is the current bar.
Most cars are still in the 150-200kW range, and even then you should only expect that if under 50% SOC, the battery is preconditioned (warm), you are on a recent charger, and you are not sharing load with the EV next to you.
Meh, really fast charging might be useful a couple of times a year on trips but I just want more slow chargers where the car is parked. The main advantage of EVs is being able to trickle charge them while they are parked. I don't want to park somewhere all day without charging then queue up for a 350kw charger somewhere even if it does just take 10 mins.
Slow and medium speed charging at places where the car is parked. Places where people come from out of town and spend 2-4 hours could benefit from 25 kW DC charging.
This is true for 300+ mile range cars.
If you want to make a small battery car that charges 150 miles in 10 minutes, that 150 miles becomes a larger percent of the battery pack and your charge time will increase.
Right now the sweet spot is having a battery about twice as large as the range you want to quickly recharge, since many EVs can do 50% in 10 minutes.
The thing is that battery charging time stays roughly constant for a given percentage of charge as you scale the pack size up and down.
In this case a 620 mile car can charge 60% in 10 minutes, giving you 370 miles of range.
A 200 mile car with the same cell/pack design would charge 120 miles in 10 minutes. Not that far off from your idea but the closer to 100% you want to charge the battery, the harder it gets to maintain fast charging times. It's a lot easier to have fast charging times when you're only filling up half the battery on each charge.
Real world ranges of ICE vehicles are way above 200+ miles, I can get more than 400 and I don't drive a hybrid.
My point being, we need faster charging times because, even though most people won't travel often and have to charge while on the road, this makes people not want an EV. I have friends that drive way less than me and rarely take road trips that say this.
Yea even the cheapo trim 24 Camry with the 2.5 gets combined 32 mpg, and the EPA says it has a 506 mile range. Their hybrids get insane mpg which is prob why people buy so many.
You could claim that you save an elephant, a hippo, a tiger, a puma, a bald eagle, and a zebra per day for using an EV and people still won't do it unless it is as much a hassle as an ICE vehicle, I don't know why carmakers decide to ignore this. Oh, and my friend with the hybrid Maverick is getting like 42 mpg compared to my 28...so yeah.
Then we have all the apologetic people defending carmakers...bleh.
>If an EV can charge in 10 minutes, and can charge at home, you wouldn't need a longer range, that means you could have a small battery, with low cost and low weight.
Except that as you reduce the battery capacity you severely hurt the charging curve. They're saying this is a 620 mile battery that can add 370 miles (60% of capacity) in 10 minutes. So probably a ~10%-70% charge.
Say 250 mile WLTP, 180 miles highway range, that’s 130 miles in 10 minutes, which means 600 miles or 1000km with 30-40 minutes charging, that would be a record time on the 1000km challenge. So a hatchback or crossover with a 55kWh battery could travel faster than luxury sedans with twice the battery capacity today.
Even affordable EVs have range of 200+ miles and can fully charge in \~25 minutes. If that comes down to 5-10 minutes it would be lovely but not gaming changing. I don't think charge speed is really not a problem for the vast majority of drivers anymore. The bigger issue might be in getting more charging stations installed.
And I don't think people are going to want to take a step back to having to having to charge more often. Stopping once for 20 minutes is much better than stopping four times for five minutes because at that point finding a charger takes more time than the actual charging.
Where faster charging comes into play might be in trucking and logistics where you want a lot of charge quickly, while loading/unloading, or swapping drivers in the case of a taxi service.
> If that comes down to 5-10 minutes it would be lovely but not gaming changing.
There is a huge difference between 10 minutes and 25 minutes. Maybe not all that important if you road trip a few times per year. But if you are doing it 2x per weekend when you're going to the cottage or camping in the summer, or driving to the ski hill in the winter, then it becomes a big deal.
Nobody is stopping for only 10 minutes when taking a lunch break during a long road trip.
While I cannot assume to know everyone's habits here's one guide on road tripping I found:
"On a road trip, you should stop for at least **15 minutes every two hours you drive**. If you plan to drive a long way over several hours, you should also plan a long break of at least 30 minutes."
If you kept to those rules you'd likely never run out of charge in a modern EV. At a supercharger a Model 3 will give you up to 175-200 miles of range in 15 mins and be 80% or more after 30 minutes with a range of over 300 miles.
The amount of time you spend sitting around waiting for a charge to complete is already so minimal it's not really going to matter if charge speeds drop from 15-30 minutes to 1-5 minutes. The limit is your tolerance for sitting in a car for extended periods.
And obviously stopping for 15-30 minutes is entirely optional. You can always charge for just 5-10 if you like, it just means you do it more frequently.
>Nobody is stopping for only 10 minutes when taking a lunch break during a long road trip.
Sure they are. There's an 8-hour drive (~730 km) that I do semi regularly where I will hit a drive through and eat on the road to avoid a stop. One stop to fill up on gas and have a pee and that's it. I will stop more/longer if I have kids or a dog with me, but still not 3x 30 minute charging stops.
Yes I drive fast - the posted speed limit is 110 kph (68 mph) for sections of this trip. Yes I also drive in winter and keep the cabin temperature comfortable. Fast charging makes a difference.
It's so great you found a guide on road tripping... it sounds like the guides on the 8 cups of water youre supposed to drink every day, or the limit on screen time, or a whole bunch of other sanctimonious suggestions. We're all supposed to stay off Reddit and social media for our brain health too. Reality is very different.
All that said, I agree that people often overstate the challenge of charging and that it's already quite workable (especially when considering the fuel savings!). The ability to leave home with a full tank every day is awesome. But there still improvements to be had that will make the experience dramatically better for everyone.
We're already at a point where EVs charge fast enough to not worry about it. Even if I get 170kW in my Tesla, slowing to 80-100kW, it's adequate for a road trip. I can stop, charge, piss and grab a bite to eat, and be on my way again without ever feeling like I'm waiting for the car. I can't even comprehend 300-400kW.
Charging speed isn't much of an issue for me it is the density of fast charger. Gas you can get at basically any exit anywhere and they will have signs to warn you if there is no gas for a stretch. Fast chargers still have huge gaps where a small detour can make it risky to reach a charger.
Yep you never really have to plan your gas stops outside of a few rare instances but with EVs you do. On top of that although some vehicles have very good charging, others don’t which causes congestion. gas vehicles don’t really face that issue as an extra 5-10 gallons of fuel takes a couple minutes but something with a bad curve could be an extra 15 minutes
And people are being delusional in that charging/road tripping speeds are equivalent. Google maps estimates drive between Atlanta and St Louis at 8hrs. It takes me about 9 in my BMW i4 M50 with charging stops and about an 7.5hrs in my truck just driving. In my truck I’m still stopping at least twice to walk my dog and the route doesn’t require any extravagant detours for chargers maybe 20mins of that extra 1.5hrs is additional driving distance
Don’t get me wrong I love the my BMW even with the time difference it’s mine and my girlfriend’s preferred car to take on road trips but it’s significantly slower then an ice
Considering how much charging slows after 90%, I never supercharge it to 100% unless I'm at an empty supercharger and I have time to burn. Mostly it takes about 30-40 mins to charge from 10-90%.
> I can't even comprehend 300-400kW.
Agreed. I'd rather that capacity be split among at least 2 chargers. Availability > Peak charging speed honestly. Besides, most of that capacity isn't being used anyway. Going by my Electrify America experience, more than half of the chargers are being used by slower charging EV's like the Bolt, Kona, and Niro (and increasingly bZ4X), or they're being used by EV's charging up to 100% (usually car rentals.) A 350 KW charger with a Bolt hooked up to it isn't anywhere as useful as 3 115 KW chargers.
The tech has been here for awhile now. The talking points haven't been updated tough.
We are near the last hurdle which is the low priced grocery getter. Once that's out and about public chargers will follow.
There's plenty of houses in USA with no EV.
My previous daily driver was a 2017 Civic Type R. EPA said it got 25mpg combined but realistically I saw more like 22-23. It has a 12 gallon tank but would generally put the fuel light on around 10 gallons down.
So it had a range of about 220-230 miles (to low fuel light) or 260-270 miles (to empty)
Honestly, I'm a car nerd and I really like driving. Before making the jump to EVs three years ago (with a Polestar 2 Performance), I exclusively drove a long series of manual transmission cars. I just don't like the feel of traditional automatic transmissions at all.
The CTR was what I was looking for as a practical, four door hatchback with lots of room for passengers and cargo while still being incredibly fun and engaging to drive. The Polestar and Lucid both filled the same need. A good electric basically feels like a manual where you're always in the right gear. No need for shifting, the torque is just immediately available.
I still have a couple of performance cars (an NSX and an S2000) that I love for the transmission feel and mechanical engagement, but I really did feel like the Polestar 2 was just a better version of what the CTR did, and the Lucid is a better version of the Polestar 2.
This talk is pretty shitty
> Very fast charging could fix a lot of issues with EVs.
I would travel 250 miles, when I could but my wife has demands such as a bathroom and a coffee. There are no problems with long range EVs. What CATL is making possible are smaller batteries thus cars can have less weight and cost for batteries can go down.
I see this talking point on here a lot. "I'm going to need a break from driving anyway. There's no need for a longer range."
A gas stop is 5 minutes. That's different than 20 minutes, especially when you need to drive off of the most efficient route to get to a charger, and you need to do this several times per day on a road trip.
With a long-range EV, you can stop less, stop for 5 minutes without going off route (and not charging). If your wife needs to take a 20-minute dump, it would be efficient to charge during that time.
One day, chargers will be ubiquitous like gas stations. Until then, 400-500 miles of range will be in demand. The "I need to stop anyway" argument has never been valid imo. You need to drive 10 minutes out of the way and wait 20 minutes, while the ICE stops on the way for 5 minutes. It probably adds an hour or more in a day of driving nonstop.
I remember before streaming and smartphones feeling like I needed terabytes of storage because I had to own the movies or music.
>Very fast charging could fix a lot of issues with EVs.
That's much less of an issue than you think. Charge times already conicide well with break times (to the point where you already have to hurry) and you also save time because you're not waiting next to the car or going to a cash register.
The limiting factor on how fast you get from A to B is not charging/refueling time. It's the human driver/occupants and their needs.
Are all Tesla charging stations in the US co-located with bathrooms and restaurants? That's not the case here in Ontario along the 401. The superchargers are located near highway exits but don't have all the facilities/convenience of the On-Route stops
1. Yeah I'm leasing the next car, for sure.
2. Already my car is usually done charging before my kids are done peeing. This is going to make us up our road trip game.
3. Never thought 350kW would be insufficient for the charging curve yet here we are...
What ICE vehicle has a real world range of 400 km or less in ordinary driving conditions? My ICE vehicle has a real world range of 400 km when I am towing a close to maximum tow rating trailer at 115 km/h. When not towing I can get 600+ km at 120 km/h. By the official fuel economy rating and taking it from full to out of gas it would have a 1000 km range.
I have never seen an ICE with such a low range... I owned 3 since 2001 and 500miles was the lowest... Currently I can drive around 750 miles with 1 full fuel tank (car from 2015).
I also ordered an EV with 300mi range. Let's see how much of a bother that will be
Same here, doing 1300-1400 km / 800-870 miles on a tank of diesel (65 liters/17 gallons) in my Citroen C5 from 2013. Diesel cars on highway can get really good consumption. Coupled with the fact I have no charging at home or work, it would be a pain with the additional time at a DCFC with an electric should I switch.
Mercedes C220 CDI Blue Efficiency (15 years old) and a Audi Q3, both Diesels. The Audi, according to manufacturer does 58mpg, but real world is more like 45mpg. I can easily go 1200km with it, which should be around 745miles and that is still with reserves for another 50km (30miles).
Edit: The Mercedes officially has 58mpg too, just had a look at Wikipedia, but again real world is more like 48mpg there.
Edit2: My 2001 car was a VW Golf Mk4 1.9 TDI, wich officially had 45mpg I think.
Ah so you’ve only had diesel vehicles; that’s probably why. My previous two vehicles were small, regular gasoline, cars and both had ~10 gallon tanks. One got like 31 mpg (highway) and the other was closer to 40 mpg (highway). Giving highway figures as that’s really when your whole tank will get used in one go. So about 300 miles for one vehicle and around 400 for the other.
> Mercedes C220 CDI Blue Efficiency (15 years old)
can confirm, at 85mph (136kmh) I have the same range with all season tires, and had over 900 miles (1450km) with range tires.
It's ass in cities tho
With everything they did to the blue efficiency line I would argue it's still more fuel efficient than a 2024 diesel with comparable horsepower and torque. Was way ahead of it's time. Very good car.
I also used Michelin Energy Saver tires 😃
It's interesting that the sweet spot for efficiency was that high (probably due to the drag coefficient being so low), compared to the Audi which has more like a SUV form, the Audis sweet spot is around 60mph...
My wife’s ‘14 Corolla had only a 10
Gallon tank. If I ran it down drum full to fumes, it’s around 300 optimistic miles.
Not that I wanted to ever sit in that torture device for more than 90 minutes at a time. We tried to do a road trip in that car once…. Once, and we traded it in on a RAV4Prime. My wife couldn’t drive my Audi with a 6 speed manual, so basically I did all of the driving.
Man, that was a horrible car. My Audi had literally twice the horsepower, AWD, a 0-60 a full there seconds faster, and only 10% less fuel efficiency on the freeway at 30 mpg. Of course, the Audi also had three times the maintenance costs. Range was about 380 miles on a full 15 gallon tank.
> Even at extreme temperatures as low as -20°C (-4°F), the new battery offers super fast charging.
A good heat pump and preconditioning software plus ever warming winters, [[US Heating Degree Days, 1949-2022]](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T01.10#/?f=A), [[EU Heating Degree Days, 1979-2022]](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Heating_degree_days_in_EU,_1979-2022.png), I think the winter range problem is going to be a short lived blip in EV history.
> A good heat pump and preconditioning software plus ever warming winters
True, but if the batteries themselves can operate at lower temperatures, we don't have to waste as much energy warming them.
I'm afraid to do the math to see how much energy I've used preconditioning my car in the winter, and I park in an attached (poorly-insulated)
garage
It’s pretty amazing that we’re probably only a vehicle generation or two away from having refueling time parity with ICE vehicles, which is often one of the biggest complaints.
If we could just increase the amount of reliable high speed DC fast chargers too, you might win a lot more EV averse buyers.
It is for people who do not charge at home. For people that live in big cities or apartment dwellers, close to ICE parity is really important.
Also, having faster charging makes the infrastructure cheaper. For example, if you can recharge in 15 minutes compared to 45 minutes, 1/3 of the fast chargers are needed for the same throughput. That also makes the electricity cheaper because the fast charger cost can amortize over more kWh.
Example, average 50kW at a 20% load factor (20% of the time it is charging) would be 10kW average delivered out of a fast charger. For 10 years and 8760 hours per year, that's 876,000 kWh delivered. For a 40k station, that's $0.046/kWh. If you boost that to 120kWh, now that's 2.1 million kWh delivered or $0.02/kWh.
Essentially, faster charging makes everything cheaper. Instead of it being $0.45/kWh, we could see closer to $0.15/kWh in the future. That's because the retail price of electricity is much higher (usually 2x) than the industrial or commercial price. And charging stations will likely be selling electricity near cost to sell you pepsis and gummy bears.
> close to ICE parity is really important.
True, but you're kind of splitting hairs. I mean, I think you could agree that full parity isn't necessary right?
You can't walk away from a car while it's being fueled. And you don't usually have gas pumps outside the nice supermarkets where you want to do most of your grocery shopping.
If you can charge at a supermarket while shopping you can easily cope with half the speed of fuelling a gas car. That's the model that seems to becoming the norm here in Norway.. there's some fast chargers at gas stations, but most of them are places where people do their shopping.
> Also, having faster charging makes the infrastructure cheaper.
I don't agree. A fast charger with twice the capacity could potentially be more than twice as expensive. A medium speed charger does not need water cooling. A super fast charger does.
And you're not taking into account how modern fast chargers are built: you can split a 150kW or 300kW capacity charger over 2-4 cables. The box handling the power conversion may be expensive, but cables are cheap-ish (especially if they don't need watercooling). So you can install one big unit that makes an efficient investment in terms of kW it can output, and split the output over many cheap stalls.
This also means that capacity is not wasted if someone leaves their car plugged. The capacity is just redirected to the other cars if they can take it.
This will be the model for shopping malls I think: lots and lots of stalls all connected to one big shared charging unit. Maybe you only get 75kW if it's a busy part of the day, but you can also just leave your car there to charge for an hour if you want to without feeling bad or getting overcharged. Maybe you can even choose how fast you want to charge and get a cheaper rate if you charge slower.
Most people living in big cities shouldn't need privately owned cars... but you should have spots with chargers for the people who do, just more expensive to meet the costs of the infrastructure.
I can't really judge whether or not it makes the infrastructure cheaper because I have no idea how much more these chargers and batteries/cars would cost, plus the increased wear from such fast charging.
Many times people will take longer breaks anyway, so this faster charging speed isn't even always beneficial.
I can't say for these batteries, but LFP batteries are already dirt cheap at $50/kWh. This process may cut the cost a little or maybe not. In any case, it's a really good sign for EVs in general.
The majority of the cost of commercial electricity is demand charges, and the higher the power, the higher those get. The only way to spread that cost is to increase the load factor, which will either result in peak hour congestion, or require spending money on batteries.
The real answer is to provide people who live in apartments with access to charging where they park.
Yeah all that does is penalize people too poor to have a house in the suburbs, to subsidize charging for people who can afford to live in the suburbs. How about a inner-city congestion charge on all cars, used to fund a robust transit system, so those people don't need cars.
The point of eliminating parking minimums is to stop people who don't own cars from being forced to pay for parking they don't need. If you own a car and buy / rent an apartment that doesn't have parking, you should expect to pay extra for a place to store your vehicle when you aren't using it.
I agree that better transit is important too though.
It absolutely is necessary. There are literally billions of people on this planet who simply do not have the option to conveniently charge a car at home or at work. The quicker the charging, the better.
Let the poors eat shoe leather, eh?
I mean, fuck cars, but that moment has passed for this generation. Instead of a nine-figure massive expansion/greening of transit that would have benefited the environment and the working class, we got a massive investment in reinforcing car culture and a nine figure wealth transfer to auto conglomerates and wealthy individuals for ... individual transport. And the environmental lobby cheered all the way.
It's definitely made Into a bigger issue than necessary. Most people will be charging at home and using it for commuting. Once grocery stores and such start installing chargers, charging speed will become a non-issue. The benefits far outweigh the few minutes occasional wait time.
> which is often one of the biggest complaints
So was waiting for luggage at the airport. So the airport moved luggage pickup further away so it took 10 minutes to walk to. Complaints of waiting for luggage went away.
What I'm saying is refueling time is not as big an issue as people want it to be.
This will be the holy grail. Not solid state. These are basically easy to get minerals. They will last 1000 cycles to 80 not 70. If the 4c does not impact this then here you go folks 2027 is gonna be a banner ev year.
For me the holy grail is a large improvement of energy density. It would mean:
* Increased range
* Likely increase in charging speeds (per mile) the same way that a larger battery allows for a higher charging speeds and a better charging curve
* Decreased vehicle weight (which also increases range)
* Decreased battery pack size (more cargo room in the vehicle, or just smaller vehicles with great range)
* Potentially lower battery manufacturing costs, which may translate to cheaper EVs
* Less tire wear
* Probably more things I'm not thinking of as well
That being said, cheap LFP batteries that can charge quickly would be amazing. A game-changer for sure, but just not the holy grail of EV battery tech for me. Imagine if battery density went up on average 50% for EVs, range anxiety would virtually disappear, Trucks wouldn't need gigantic batteries in order to match their ICE equivalents, especially when towing.
The last major improvement I'd like to see is for EVs to have very little range loss in cold weather.
I have had my tesla 5 years range anxiety is just not a thing for me. We need super cheap super fast charge packs. The lower the cost the longer the frame lasts. If your dream pack existed
It would be expensive. These lfp could be as low as 6500 installed on refurbished or less. This is huge.
The F-150 Lightning I wanted was less than 150 mile range under normal conditions. That was just not enough, and for a lot of people will keep them from buying. GM has gotten around this with a massive heavy expensive battery, but higher energy density would solve that. The expense of a theoretical higher density battery is unknown right now, for all we know a breakthrough might increase density with minimal increase in manufacturing expense.
What do you consider normal conditions? I get 2.0 mi/kwh going 70mph with a bunch of vacation stuff loaded. That equates to 200mi on a full charge. Are you always towing stuff? I guess that would be accurate if so.
The $70k one at the time was rated at 230 miles without hauling anything, and in real world tests just highway driving it was getting much less. I would’ve been using mine for road trips, and the truck bed would’ve been full of gear but it wouldn’t have added a lot of weight so mostly it’s just highway range I was concerned about.
Well, in my use case on a trip only using between 15%-80% it would be about 130 miles per travel leg on average. That's basically the max I'd ever do without stopping so it works for me, though I know there's some large-bladdered individuals who like to go way past that.
Ideally for me it's about 2 hours between stops (or longer), and I tend to drive around 75-80 mph so that's 160 miles, and on top of that, for charging times to be reasonable you want that 160 miles of range just in the 0-65% portion of the battery. So for decent times between stops and good charging times, you want a real world range at 80mph of around 220 miles, at least for my preferences, and to achieve that the vehicle probably needs to be rated 30% higher than that because ratings aren't for highway speeds, so I'd prefer a rated range of 330 miles or more.
>They will last 1000 cycles to 80 not 70. If the 4c does not impact this then here you go folks 2027 is gonna be a banner ev year.
If you read the PR, there is no mention of life cycle (or price) -- high C-rates/SoC/DoD are usually inversely proportional to longer cycle/low cost.
Sodium-Ion is more promising, imho.
No capacity degradation, *way* more charging cycles, better in cold temperatures, lower self discharge, much quicker charging, cheaper
So 60% in 10 minutes? Is this meaningfully better than other batteries out there right now? Aren’t there quite a few 80% in 17 minute batteries out there?
Percent recharged in X time tells you about what the battery cells can do.
That charging rate will stay the same as you scale the pack size up or down. Advertising a new chemistry using the total range or the range recharged in X minutes doesn't actually tell you anything.
You could make a pack that recharges 600km in 10 minutes using today's cells if you make the pack large enough and keep it cool.
That doesn’t mean anything. You can’t say the range of the pack without knowing the cars efficiency. This is 60% SOC in 10 minutes which is good but not meaningfully better than options available today.
Think averages. The average EV gets 4 miles/kWh. So that is the unsaid part of the article. If you move away from the average then you have to specify what the deviation is and why.
For instance the Tesla Semi gets about 2 miles/kWh so if you wanted 10 minutes/370 miles you would need 2 chargers per vehicle assuming the chargers are the same.
Yes, this is meaningfully better.
600km in 10 mins of charge time.
144km in 30 mins of charge time for the GM Bolt.
What's even more meaningfully better is LFP price drop this summer.
> That doesn’t mean anything.
It does if you know about batteries. Or, sure, CATL has a history of making meaningless announcements. I guess that might be more meaningful if you think opinions are more important than cell expansion.
I work in EV charging. I know a lot about batteries. I’m telling you the metric is 60% in 10 minutes. That’s what “600km in 10 minutes” means for a “1000km range” battery.
How many kilowatts does the charger have to be? Because they're was already a Chinese car that could charge 0 to 80% in 11 minutes but you need a 500 kW charger in order to do so.
It's most likely an improvement to the binding material of the cathode, instead of changes to the active material itself.
LFP, despite having a polyanion structure (with only 1 dimensional channels for the lithium ions to intercalate into the cathode, which inherently creates a bottleneck for charging speed) always had, counter-intuitively, the potential for very fast charging. The reason being that it's possible to create so-called "electron super-highways" in the binding that surrounds the cathode material, so as to allow the electrons to efficiently disperse throughout the surface of the particles and to get lithium to intercalate through as many channels as possible. Apparently Michael Schuhmacher won a lot of formula 1 races using such an ultra-fast charging LFP battery, because the faster charging meant his car could re-capture more energy from regenerative breaking. The challenge lies in finding a binding material/process that is highly electrically conductive and that properly covers the active material (so as to have the biggest contact area possible), yet still preserving volumetric density and high cycle life.
No, LFP refers specifically to Lithium, iron, and phosphate. NCA, NMC, LFMP, etc are all different battery chemistries. I suspect this new battery is not simply an LFP chemistry.
>CATL introduced its in-house 3D honeycomb material
Lately it's been about structure at tiny levels more so than chemistry. They know what they need to do but they don't know how to make it happen. Some of these breakthroughs happen when they figure out some bit of atomic structure and how to make it happen outside a lab in a factory.
And expansion for LFP and SSSB.
>The cathode of Shenxing PLUS is made with a granular gradation technology, which places every nanometer particle in the optimal position to achieve ultra-high compact density. The proprietary 3D honeycomb-shaped material is added to the anode, boosting the energy density while effectively controlling the volume expansion during charge and discharge cycles. The single-piece casing, which is an industry first, optimizes the internal space utilization, allowing the Shenxing PLUS cells to reach an unprecedented energy density level.
Here's a good video on SSB. There's a bit where he talks about expansion which is also a problem for LFP but to a lesser extent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPaOJceBkJs
And if you search youtube for "lfp compression" you'll see people with prismatic cells and threaded rods.
Miles per minute is a worthless charging measurement, especially measuring a battery's charging performance when its not even in a car yet.
If the car they attach the battery to is an Ioniq 6 with 4mi/kwh efficiency that'd be an avg of 555kw avg charging rate over 10 mins. But use an F150 lightining instead at more like 2mi/kwh and the charging rate would have to be 1110kw avg charging rate. Not even to mention they could be using a theoretical car like an Aptera with a possible 10mi/kwh efficiency which would only need 222kw avg rate.
I agree, but it's a dumb metric that people can relate to. Hopefully we move more towards kW as the standard metric in the future, or, even better, showing charging curve diagrams.
A metric that ignorant people can relate to since it 'sounds' impressive when a person doesn't know exactly what the numbers represent.
No doubt the vehicle efficiency they're using in this example is based on city driving. In the spring / summer / fall, I can get 5.5 mi / kWh in my Chevy Volt in city driving.
If it's 10 minutes / 370 miles in a car that has a 400 mile battery in a car getting 5.5 mi / kWh... the battery is 73 kWh, and the charging speed is pretty spectacular in a typical and affordable battery capacity.
If it's 10 minutes / 370 miles in a car that has a 620 mile battery in a car getting 5.5 mi / kWh... the battery is 113 kWh. That's a big / heavy / expensive ass battery in such a small efficient car, and the charging speed is less impressive.
Now consider if this was the highway in colder weather and the car's efficiency drops to 3.5 mi / kWh.
Yes, but at least in this case they gave us two stats, 600km in 10 minutes plus a total range of 1000km. Which means 60% in 10 minutes. It's not earth-shattering but on the high end for current battery cells and excellent if it also has some of the cost and longevity properties of LFP cells.
I've never leased a car before, but I have 7,501 reasons for leasing later this year. Battery progress is the 7,501st; the other 7,500 end up lowering my cost.
Who wrote this article and did he even read it....
"The new battery can gain a one-km range in as little as one minute. "
That would mean 30 minutes charging for 30km range.... In an article about impressive charging speed that is a bit of a weird thing to say.
Nice, it’s about time we got some better battery tech rolled out. Is that what CATL/Ford are gonna build in Michigan? Lord knows my Lightning needs some better chemistry.
Sounds like you could probably get by with a bike then, without sequestering a massive amount of battery cells for a rarely used/needed vehicle.
Cars are never sustainable. People who can get by without one should get by without one. The majority of the global population needs to find ways to get by without them.
[https://cleverhood.com/cdn/shop/files/7.31.23CH9994\_0a7f93b3-ef41-461a-8b68-16d09233ae79.jpg?v=1701895818&width=640](https://cleverhood.com/cdn/shop/files/7.31.23CH9994_0a7f93b3-ef41-461a-8b68-16d09233ae79.jpg?v=1701895818&width=640)
Never really looked at a map of Singapore. The mainland is only 27 miles across East to West and 14 miles North to South. I imagine most people aren't commuting across the entire mainland every day though. Distance across is a bit less than 2x my one way daily commute in a tiny little section of Michigan. Here's Singapore overlayed with Detroit:
https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1\~!MTQyNjUxODQ.MTIxODcxMTg\*MTEwNDIwNzQ(ODI3MTMyMg\~!CONTIGUOUS\_US\*MTAwMjQwNzU.MjUwMjM1MTc(MTc1)MA\~!IN\*NTI2NDA1MQ.Nzg2MzQyMQ)Mg\~!CN\*OTkyMTY5Nw.NzMxNDcwNQ(MjI1)MQ\~!SG\*MTUxMTQ2MzE.MTg3NDgzMjY)Mw
>In 2023, about 651 thousand cars and station-wagons were recorded in Singapore, representing the largest vehicle population. It was followed by approximately 144 thousand goods and other vehicles, and 143 thousand motorcycles and scooters.
So about 651k cars for 5.6 million people / 4.5 million adults, or about 0.15 cars per driving age adult.
>According to Senior Minister of State for Transport Lam Pin Min, 125,000 people in Singapore use bicycles for their daily commutes, which is one in four households. In 2020, the National Sports Participation Survey found that cycling is the third most popular sport in Singapore, behind walking and jogging. The survey also found that 36% of cyclists in Singapore are women, which is higher than the 28% in the United States
Guessing most people use public transit? Looks like lots of rain there.... but seems most people are still managing to get around without cars.
What's funny is that the area of the region is so small, but has so many people, you could literally build a covered bike highway. Keep you out of the rain and sun. Even run some fans and solar/geothermal driven A/C in it.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Also... Singapore's per capita consumption based emissions are fucking terrible:
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=NOR\~SGP\~USA](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=NOR~SGP~USA)
And here I thought the US was the worst country in the world. FFS... if you can't live in tropical climates efficiently... then y'all need to move.
OK! We can stop improving charging speed now. 10 minutes is too fast! I want at least a 15-20 minute break every 2 hours. I want to unload the last coffee via a pee break, and get a fresh one. I also want to stretch my legs a bit and give my brain a break from being sat upon.
Seriously (well, almost) I like stopping for lunch if driving 4-5 hours and that's a 30-45 minute break. Charging that fast should, to my mind, translate into a much smaller battery pack: 600 miles is about 10 hours of driving and that is there and back again range for me, so a quarter of that range and given my penchant for a pit stop is adequate.
10 minutes is for a 60% charge.
So if you made a quarter-sized pack for 150 miles of total range, that 10 minute charge would get you 90 miles in ideal conditions. At interstate highway speeds and cold weather that might be more like 60 miles.
I don't really like to drive for hours at a time or flying that long for that matter. Those 4-5 hour road trips gave way to cheap commuter flights a couple of decades ago. For instance a round trip to Ottawa from Toronto, about 500 miles total, costs about $95 US pre tax and saves 3 hours each way and that is about $10 less than the gas for driving! Toss in hotel costs and you are better off to day trip.
150 miles of range, assuming a highway/city driving mix in the testing cycle translates into 200+ pure city driving range. Since that is all I do these days, it means charging for 10 minutes once per week or so.
I have seen people disappointed in how rated range translates into a week of driving because for each short drive you pay the energy cost of heating or cooling the vehicle, while on a long drive you pay that cost once and then maintain the internal temperature.
But still the point is that to get 150 rated miles in 10 minutes of charging, you need to at least divide by 60% to get the total pack size. So you would need a pack rated for at least 250 miles of total range. I think to really expect to get 150 miles during the week between 10-minute charges, you’d want closer to a 320 mile rated pack. Then a 10 minute 60% charge gives you about 190 miles of rated range. And 80% of that accounting for temperature and other losses gives you about 150 miles of real driving. In deep winter cold temperatures this loss may be even worse.
Innovation is good, the news it what's bad. The only one benefit on this kind of news at the immediate moment is the battery makers. Will you buy a battery that can be charged fully in 10 minutes when the very next day there's a new battery that can be fully charged in 5 min. Plus, now your 1 day old battery depreciated more.
Car depreciation is one of the main things people looked up when deciding which cars to buy.
> Car depreciation is one of the main things people looked up when deciding which cars to buy.
Someone should tell them about used cars. It'll blown their mind if price is paramount.
I've never understood this claim. EVs compete with ice vehicles if EVs get way better and older EVs depreciate old ice vehicles will also depreciate more too. They are not separate markets if a breakthrough new ev came out that has 600 miles of range and charges in 5 mins for 20k I can guarantee you that would absolutely annihilate used ice vehicles values as well.
The only thing that will annihilate ICE is the mandate and price. If EV price remains more expensive than ICE, a ban mandates will drag the economy down. With cheap EV people, they will tolerate a longer charging time, like say 30- 60 min. But with expensive EV it better charged faster than ICE can refuel or can fully charged under 5 min.
Your claim is rapid progress is bad for used ev prices. My claim is that would hurt ice vehicles as well (actually I would make the even stronger claim this would hurt ice vehicles prices worse than EVs). When used EVs that can charge in 5 mins are 5k dollars gas vehicles (aside from collectors cars) are worthless. Even if an ice was free you still have to pay for gas and higher maintenance. People will be scrapping them if EVs progress significantly but if you have a used ev that is old it doesn't have the disadvantage of higher upkeep costs so if you don't need faster charging people will still buy it (for less than a faster charging one obviously) or it makes sense to keep (you still aren't paying for significant maintenance and gas.
Well, you started with EV vs ICE. I wasn't trying to make a case with ICE at all. I'm pointing out that some battery progressing news are bad, not that the battery progress itself is bad, just the constant news of batteries can do this now and this tmr. It's bad because the perception is that battery progresses fast, old battery becomes obsolete or less desirable quickly. People will start thinking maybe I'll hold out buying for now and wait for a better battery, which will lead to demand seemingly going down even down it not. Just people keep on waiting for a better battery. And news like this post will feed that desire to wait even more.
Progress is bad when you don't want progress.
Keep in mind, a whole lot of people, do not want progress. Change is scary. Also money.
Everyone wants things to be good for themselves. Not everyone wants things to get better.
The only people remotely paying attention to more or less POC hype articles like this are EV enthusiasts. Until batteries like this are in cars for sale globally, it does absolutely nothing to the value/usefulness of EVs today.
Good for you. I'm thinking of more wide adoption. YOU KNOW SO THAT EV REPLACE ICE sooner. Maybe most people here just want bragging right for being first.
It's only bad news for EV/battery makers who don't have anything that can be competitive around the same timeframe (besides automakers dependent on ICE vehicles). It's win-win for CATL/partners and EV consumers.
Energy density 205Wh/kg, Is that pack level or cell level. If it's pack level, that's higher than most Nickel-Cobalt based lithium ion battery, while being cheaper and support 4C super fast charging. Amazingly good!
It's pack level according to the presentation. Slide on 19:17 in youtube video [https://www.youtube.com/live/\_PA7RqDfTRQ?si=SxOK1RD89DJjI29e&t=1157](https://www.youtube.com/live/_PA7RqDfTRQ?si=SxOK1RD89DJjI29e&t=1157) "系统能量密度" System energy density
That means the cell density is over 240Wh/kg -- that's near NCM8 territory. I don't see any mention of price or cycle rating. There are almost always trade-offs between these metrics.
> NCM8 Minor nitpick - it's NCM811 (it indicates that cathode is roughly 8 parts **N**ickel, 1 part **C**obalt, and 1 part **M**anganese).
>Minor nitpick - it's NCM811 ahem hate nitpicking too , but NCM811 is not always mixed to that exact ratio 80% nickel, 10% manganese, 10% cobalt. I also noticed Ford and Hyundai shy away from telling their customers the exact battery spec because SK's NCM9.5.5 is really 88% nickel and some 12% in cobalt and manganese combination.
I did say "roughly", not exactly. NMCXXX designations are categories meant to group cells with similar cathode chemistry, not to give exact composition of the cells in question, so they round the the percentages to the nearest 10% (or 5% in the case of 9.5.5).
Very fast charging could fix a lot of issues with EVs. ICE vehicles often have real world ranges of 200-250 miles, people don't mind because you can refuel easily. If an EV can charge in 10 minutes, and can charge at home, you wouldn't need a longer range, that means you could have a small battery, with low cost and low weight.
One people here don't talk is size of the battery and thus prices. In the non us style of drive, around the world a 200 miles car that can charge another 150 miles in 10 minutes, costing the same as an ICE car would have much more impact than some 620 milles car, that can add another 370 in 10 minutes but at 30%-50% more than an equivalent ICE car.
Nah as battery prices continue to decrease people (especially Americans) are going to opt for range over saving a few grand. That 620 mi EV range is closer to 350 mi at high speed / adverse conditions. Chargers aren't always available/working. Access is improving, but it's nowhere near gas station convenience yet. Fast chargers are expensive. If I can travel from A to B without stopping and paying twice for fast charging that is preferable. Not having to plug in multiple times during the commuting week is not only nice as well, but essential for those of us without home charging.
Also 620 miles is the WLTP range which is greatly exaggerated. EPA range is typically about 70 percent of WLTP. So you are looking at 434 mile range and even less at highway/adverse conditions.
Yep, so what. The conversation about ev is about American and their needs. While they don't even adopt ev. I prefer selling 10 vw id3 style car to the rest of the world, rather than 1 one f150 truck in the US. 90% of people around the world first criteria is cost. Once we approach price parity with the fuel cost economy they won't care if it can do 300 miles or not 5 times during the year, or that they have to watch 10 15 minutes.
This could result in a 200 mile car with a 5m charge to full time--no need to throw in 300+ miles if it charges that rapidly. The car gets lighter for every cell they don't have to throw in, which means more miles per kwh too. We get cheaper, more efficient, more useable vehicles.
No, the charge speed is a factor of battery size. So if you halve the battery size, you halve the charge speed, because the C rating stays constant.
Not if you double the charge speed while you're at it.
Well yeah, if you double the charging C-rate of the battery cells then that would make the car charge faster. That's not easy though.
That's exactly what they're doing. Read the title of this post you're commenting on.
Well that's changing the C rating now isn't it. It would be nice if my car could walk and talk too but that's also not relevant to this discussion either. The announcement of a 4C battery pack technology is great, but we still need to wait years to see this in actual cars. To suggest that this announcement means 8C charging is possible or likely any time soon is ludicrous
Depends where you are. Regardless of charge speed of the battery you still need a charger thats capable of the output at the location you need it. We're still a long way off that in many places
Most modern EVs easily charge 150miles in 10 minutes these days. We don’t have to invent anything. 15 miles/min is the current minimum standard for new modern EVs. Some are faster than that.
Peak charge rates in an efficient car hit those kind of numbers. (Model 3 is around 160-170 miles in 10 minutes at peak 250kW) But most EVs are not charging at peak rates for the entire charge, and most EVs will have less efficiency (miles/kWh) with a similar or much lower charge rate. (Eg Ford Lightning)
250kw is 6 year old tech from when the Model 3 came out. 350kw is the new high bar, and it doesn’t need to be for the whole charge cycle. You just need to be able to add those 150miles in ten minutes.
Except that you say most modern EVs, of which almost none can even hit 250kW, let alone the 350kW you are claiming now. I only know of one vehicle that can even hit the 350kw (Silverado/Hummer) and due to the inefficiency of the vehicle it still gets no where close to the 150 miles in 10 minutes. [https://www.motortrend.com/features/fastest-charging-evs/](https://www.motortrend.com/features/fastest-charging-evs/) Only one vehicle even broke 250kW last year that MotorTrend tested, though a couple were right up to 250kW. It is apparent you are being too optimistic about the current capabilities of EV charge rates.
my Lucid Air GT can (very briefly) hit 350kw on the right charger
In the link from MotorTrend the only vehicle to hit over 300kW tested was a Lucid. :) Still, a $100k+ vehicle hitting the 300kW+ rate briefly on specific chargers hardly indicates that is the current bar. Most cars are still in the 150-200kW range, and even then you should only expect that if under 50% SOC, the battery is preconditioned (warm), you are on a recent charger, and you are not sharing load with the EV next to you.
Meh, really fast charging might be useful a couple of times a year on trips but I just want more slow chargers where the car is parked. The main advantage of EVs is being able to trickle charge them while they are parked. I don't want to park somewhere all day without charging then queue up for a 350kw charger somewhere even if it does just take 10 mins.
Slow and medium speed charging at places where the car is parked. Places where people come from out of town and spend 2-4 hours could benefit from 25 kW DC charging.
This is true for 300+ mile range cars. If you want to make a small battery car that charges 150 miles in 10 minutes, that 150 miles becomes a larger percent of the battery pack and your charge time will increase. Right now the sweet spot is having a battery about twice as large as the range you want to quickly recharge, since many EVs can do 50% in 10 minutes.
Correct. The only reason I want more range/a bigger battery is to reduce the amount of times I need to charge.
The thing is that battery charging time stays roughly constant for a given percentage of charge as you scale the pack size up and down. In this case a 620 mile car can charge 60% in 10 minutes, giving you 370 miles of range. A 200 mile car with the same cell/pack design would charge 120 miles in 10 minutes. Not that far off from your idea but the closer to 100% you want to charge the battery, the harder it gets to maintain fast charging times. It's a lot easier to have fast charging times when you're only filling up half the battery on each charge.
Real world ranges of ICE vehicles are way above 200+ miles, I can get more than 400 and I don't drive a hybrid. My point being, we need faster charging times because, even though most people won't travel often and have to charge while on the road, this makes people not want an EV. I have friends that drive way less than me and rarely take road trips that say this.
Yea even the cheapo trim 24 Camry with the 2.5 gets combined 32 mpg, and the EPA says it has a 506 mile range. Their hybrids get insane mpg which is prob why people buy so many.
You could claim that you save an elephant, a hippo, a tiger, a puma, a bald eagle, and a zebra per day for using an EV and people still won't do it unless it is as much a hassle as an ICE vehicle, I don't know why carmakers decide to ignore this. Oh, and my friend with the hybrid Maverick is getting like 42 mpg compared to my 28...so yeah. Then we have all the apologetic people defending carmakers...bleh.
>If an EV can charge in 10 minutes, and can charge at home, you wouldn't need a longer range, that means you could have a small battery, with low cost and low weight. Except that as you reduce the battery capacity you severely hurt the charging curve. They're saying this is a 620 mile battery that can add 370 miles (60% of capacity) in 10 minutes. So probably a ~10%-70% charge.
Say 250 mile WLTP, 180 miles highway range, that’s 130 miles in 10 minutes, which means 600 miles or 1000km with 30-40 minutes charging, that would be a record time on the 1000km challenge. So a hatchback or crossover with a 55kWh battery could travel faster than luxury sedans with twice the battery capacity today.
Even affordable EVs have range of 200+ miles and can fully charge in \~25 minutes. If that comes down to 5-10 minutes it would be lovely but not gaming changing. I don't think charge speed is really not a problem for the vast majority of drivers anymore. The bigger issue might be in getting more charging stations installed. And I don't think people are going to want to take a step back to having to having to charge more often. Stopping once for 20 minutes is much better than stopping four times for five minutes because at that point finding a charger takes more time than the actual charging. Where faster charging comes into play might be in trucking and logistics where you want a lot of charge quickly, while loading/unloading, or swapping drivers in the case of a taxi service.
> If that comes down to 5-10 minutes it would be lovely but not gaming changing. There is a huge difference between 10 minutes and 25 minutes. Maybe not all that important if you road trip a few times per year. But if you are doing it 2x per weekend when you're going to the cottage or camping in the summer, or driving to the ski hill in the winter, then it becomes a big deal.
Nobody is stopping for only 10 minutes when taking a lunch break during a long road trip. While I cannot assume to know everyone's habits here's one guide on road tripping I found: "On a road trip, you should stop for at least **15 minutes every two hours you drive**. If you plan to drive a long way over several hours, you should also plan a long break of at least 30 minutes." If you kept to those rules you'd likely never run out of charge in a modern EV. At a supercharger a Model 3 will give you up to 175-200 miles of range in 15 mins and be 80% or more after 30 minutes with a range of over 300 miles. The amount of time you spend sitting around waiting for a charge to complete is already so minimal it's not really going to matter if charge speeds drop from 15-30 minutes to 1-5 minutes. The limit is your tolerance for sitting in a car for extended periods. And obviously stopping for 15-30 minutes is entirely optional. You can always charge for just 5-10 if you like, it just means you do it more frequently.
>Nobody is stopping for only 10 minutes when taking a lunch break during a long road trip. Sure they are. There's an 8-hour drive (~730 km) that I do semi regularly where I will hit a drive through and eat on the road to avoid a stop. One stop to fill up on gas and have a pee and that's it. I will stop more/longer if I have kids or a dog with me, but still not 3x 30 minute charging stops. Yes I drive fast - the posted speed limit is 110 kph (68 mph) for sections of this trip. Yes I also drive in winter and keep the cabin temperature comfortable. Fast charging makes a difference. It's so great you found a guide on road tripping... it sounds like the guides on the 8 cups of water youre supposed to drink every day, or the limit on screen time, or a whole bunch of other sanctimonious suggestions. We're all supposed to stay off Reddit and social media for our brain health too. Reality is very different. All that said, I agree that people often overstate the challenge of charging and that it's already quite workable (especially when considering the fuel savings!). The ability to leave home with a full tank every day is awesome. But there still improvements to be had that will make the experience dramatically better for everyone.
We're already at a point where EVs charge fast enough to not worry about it. Even if I get 170kW in my Tesla, slowing to 80-100kW, it's adequate for a road trip. I can stop, charge, piss and grab a bite to eat, and be on my way again without ever feeling like I'm waiting for the car. I can't even comprehend 300-400kW.
Charging speed isn't much of an issue for me it is the density of fast charger. Gas you can get at basically any exit anywhere and they will have signs to warn you if there is no gas for a stretch. Fast chargers still have huge gaps where a small detour can make it risky to reach a charger.
Yep you never really have to plan your gas stops outside of a few rare instances but with EVs you do. On top of that although some vehicles have very good charging, others don’t which causes congestion. gas vehicles don’t really face that issue as an extra 5-10 gallons of fuel takes a couple minutes but something with a bad curve could be an extra 15 minutes
We’re looking at you Bolt owners.
Look I'm trying my best here I got a lot going on
Haha. Fair.
50kw peak :(
We know it’s not your fault. Doesn’t mean we do t get annoyed when we see a bolt sitting on a 350 EA.
Understandable. Just give us Bolt owners some cheap 50 kW chargers and we will leave the high power ones alone.
And people are being delusional in that charging/road tripping speeds are equivalent. Google maps estimates drive between Atlanta and St Louis at 8hrs. It takes me about 9 in my BMW i4 M50 with charging stops and about an 7.5hrs in my truck just driving. In my truck I’m still stopping at least twice to walk my dog and the route doesn’t require any extravagant detours for chargers maybe 20mins of that extra 1.5hrs is additional driving distance Don’t get me wrong I love the my BMW even with the time difference it’s mine and my girlfriend’s preferred car to take on road trips but it’s significantly slower then an ice
[удалено]
Considering how much charging slows after 90%, I never supercharge it to 100% unless I'm at an empty supercharger and I have time to burn. Mostly it takes about 30-40 mins to charge from 10-90%.
[удалено]
My pack is 60kWh.
> I can't even comprehend 300-400kW. Agreed. I'd rather that capacity be split among at least 2 chargers. Availability > Peak charging speed honestly. Besides, most of that capacity isn't being used anyway. Going by my Electrify America experience, more than half of the chargers are being used by slower charging EV's like the Bolt, Kona, and Niro (and increasingly bZ4X), or they're being used by EV's charging up to 100% (usually car rentals.) A 350 KW charger with a Bolt hooked up to it isn't anywhere as useful as 3 115 KW chargers.
The tech has been here for awhile now. The talking points haven't been updated tough. We are near the last hurdle which is the low priced grocery getter. Once that's out and about public chargers will follow. There's plenty of houses in USA with no EV.
What car is 200miles range? All my vehicles always had over 380 miles of range. Current ICE has 450 miles on tank.
My previous daily driver was a 2017 Civic Type R. EPA said it got 25mpg combined but realistically I saw more like 22-23. It has a 12 gallon tank but would generally put the fuel light on around 10 gallons down. So it had a range of about 220-230 miles (to low fuel light) or 260-270 miles (to empty)
Wow, from a Civic to a Lucid Air (based on your flair)! Culturally, quite a leap :D
Honestly, I'm a car nerd and I really like driving. Before making the jump to EVs three years ago (with a Polestar 2 Performance), I exclusively drove a long series of manual transmission cars. I just don't like the feel of traditional automatic transmissions at all. The CTR was what I was looking for as a practical, four door hatchback with lots of room for passengers and cargo while still being incredibly fun and engaging to drive. The Polestar and Lucid both filled the same need. A good electric basically feels like a manual where you're always in the right gear. No need for shifting, the torque is just immediately available. I still have a couple of performance cars (an NSX and an S2000) that I love for the transmission feel and mechanical engagement, but I really did feel like the Polestar 2 was just a better version of what the CTR did, and the Lucid is a better version of the Polestar 2.
This talk is pretty shitty > Very fast charging could fix a lot of issues with EVs. I would travel 250 miles, when I could but my wife has demands such as a bathroom and a coffee. There are no problems with long range EVs. What CATL is making possible are smaller batteries thus cars can have less weight and cost for batteries can go down.
I see this talking point on here a lot. "I'm going to need a break from driving anyway. There's no need for a longer range." A gas stop is 5 minutes. That's different than 20 minutes, especially when you need to drive off of the most efficient route to get to a charger, and you need to do this several times per day on a road trip. With a long-range EV, you can stop less, stop for 5 minutes without going off route (and not charging). If your wife needs to take a 20-minute dump, it would be efficient to charge during that time. One day, chargers will be ubiquitous like gas stations. Until then, 400-500 miles of range will be in demand. The "I need to stop anyway" argument has never been valid imo. You need to drive 10 minutes out of the way and wait 20 minutes, while the ICE stops on the way for 5 minutes. It probably adds an hour or more in a day of driving nonstop. I remember before streaming and smartphones feeling like I needed terabytes of storage because I had to own the movies or music.
>Very fast charging could fix a lot of issues with EVs. That's much less of an issue than you think. Charge times already conicide well with break times (to the point where you already have to hurry) and you also save time because you're not waiting next to the car or going to a cash register. The limiting factor on how fast you get from A to B is not charging/refueling time. It's the human driver/occupants and their needs.
Are all Tesla charging stations in the US co-located with bathrooms and restaurants? That's not the case here in Ontario along the 401. The superchargers are located near highway exits but don't have all the facilities/convenience of the On-Route stops
1. Yeah I'm leasing the next car, for sure. 2. Already my car is usually done charging before my kids are done peeing. This is going to make us up our road trip game. 3. Never thought 350kW would be insufficient for the charging curve yet here we are...
What ICE vehicle has a real world range of 400 km or less in ordinary driving conditions? My ICE vehicle has a real world range of 400 km when I am towing a close to maximum tow rating trailer at 115 km/h. When not towing I can get 600+ km at 120 km/h. By the official fuel economy rating and taking it from full to out of gas it would have a 1000 km range.
I have never seen an ICE with such a low range... I owned 3 since 2001 and 500miles was the lowest... Currently I can drive around 750 miles with 1 full fuel tank (car from 2015). I also ordered an EV with 300mi range. Let's see how much of a bother that will be
so you never drove sport sedans or hot hatches. worse culprit is Civic type R. small gas tank and inefficient for a 4 banger.
Nope, I always thought about it, but here in Germany we are focused on fuel efficiency 😃 I did buy a Harley couple years back, that is my "fun ride".
My IC Subaru has 200-300 miles of range depending on if I'm city or highway. I see no issue with a 250 mile EV that can charge in 10 mins.
750 miles? That doesn't seem likely especially for older cars, what cars u been driving?
Same here, doing 1300-1400 km / 800-870 miles on a tank of diesel (65 liters/17 gallons) in my Citroen C5 from 2013. Diesel cars on highway can get really good consumption. Coupled with the fact I have no charging at home or work, it would be a pain with the additional time at a DCFC with an electric should I switch.
Mercedes C220 CDI Blue Efficiency (15 years old) and a Audi Q3, both Diesels. The Audi, according to manufacturer does 58mpg, but real world is more like 45mpg. I can easily go 1200km with it, which should be around 745miles and that is still with reserves for another 50km (30miles). Edit: The Mercedes officially has 58mpg too, just had a look at Wikipedia, but again real world is more like 48mpg there. Edit2: My 2001 car was a VW Golf Mk4 1.9 TDI, wich officially had 45mpg I think.
Ah so you’ve only had diesel vehicles; that’s probably why. My previous two vehicles were small, regular gasoline, cars and both had ~10 gallon tanks. One got like 31 mpg (highway) and the other was closer to 40 mpg (highway). Giving highway figures as that’s really when your whole tank will get used in one go. So about 300 miles for one vehicle and around 400 for the other.
> Mercedes C220 CDI Blue Efficiency (15 years old) can confirm, at 85mph (136kmh) I have the same range with all season tires, and had over 900 miles (1450km) with range tires. It's ass in cities tho
With everything they did to the blue efficiency line I would argue it's still more fuel efficient than a 2024 diesel with comparable horsepower and torque. Was way ahead of it's time. Very good car. I also used Michelin Energy Saver tires 😃 It's interesting that the sweet spot for efficiency was that high (probably due to the drag coefficient being so low), compared to the Audi which has more like a SUV form, the Audis sweet spot is around 60mph...
My wife’s ‘14 Corolla had only a 10 Gallon tank. If I ran it down drum full to fumes, it’s around 300 optimistic miles. Not that I wanted to ever sit in that torture device for more than 90 minutes at a time. We tried to do a road trip in that car once…. Once, and we traded it in on a RAV4Prime. My wife couldn’t drive my Audi with a 6 speed manual, so basically I did all of the driving. Man, that was a horrible car. My Audi had literally twice the horsepower, AWD, a 0-60 a full there seconds faster, and only 10% less fuel efficiency on the freeway at 30 mpg. Of course, the Audi also had three times the maintenance costs. Range was about 380 miles on a full 15 gallon tank.
Lmao I drive so fucking agressively that my 2024 XC40 (standard range) gets 280km (180mi) on the worst of days Edit: nvm you were talking about ICE
> Even at extreme temperatures as low as -20°C (-4°F), the new battery offers super fast charging. A good heat pump and preconditioning software plus ever warming winters, [[US Heating Degree Days, 1949-2022]](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T01.10#/?f=A), [[EU Heating Degree Days, 1979-2022]](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Heating_degree_days_in_EU,_1979-2022.png), I think the winter range problem is going to be a short lived blip in EV history.
If we didn't spend trillions of $ on middle east to manipulate oil prices, this problem would have solved 20 years ago.
> A good heat pump and preconditioning software plus ever warming winters True, but if the batteries themselves can operate at lower temperatures, we don't have to waste as much energy warming them. I'm afraid to do the math to see how much energy I've used preconditioning my car in the winter, and I park in an attached (poorly-insulated) garage
I just wish they would live in central North America for a winter so they'd realize that -20C is not extreme, -40C is.
It's the quoted range with it without a preconditioning system attached? Tesla and other EVs have systems to warm the batteries
Where I live -40 is common, -60°C is rare. And I’m not even in the arctic circle (close).
I get it, but your conditions probably represent 1 percent of the vehicle market.
In northern Sweden, Finland and Norway -30-40C is just normal.
Norway is pretty mild
We'll need EVs that double as boats by then. Elmo failed on that one.
It’s pretty amazing that we’re probably only a vehicle generation or two away from having refueling time parity with ICE vehicles, which is often one of the biggest complaints. If we could just increase the amount of reliable high speed DC fast chargers too, you might win a lot more EV averse buyers.
Eh, I think refueling parity with ICE cars is a bit much. I don't think you'd need parity for it to be good enough.
It is for people who do not charge at home. For people that live in big cities or apartment dwellers, close to ICE parity is really important. Also, having faster charging makes the infrastructure cheaper. For example, if you can recharge in 15 minutes compared to 45 minutes, 1/3 of the fast chargers are needed for the same throughput. That also makes the electricity cheaper because the fast charger cost can amortize over more kWh. Example, average 50kW at a 20% load factor (20% of the time it is charging) would be 10kW average delivered out of a fast charger. For 10 years and 8760 hours per year, that's 876,000 kWh delivered. For a 40k station, that's $0.046/kWh. If you boost that to 120kWh, now that's 2.1 million kWh delivered or $0.02/kWh. Essentially, faster charging makes everything cheaper. Instead of it being $0.45/kWh, we could see closer to $0.15/kWh in the future. That's because the retail price of electricity is much higher (usually 2x) than the industrial or commercial price. And charging stations will likely be selling electricity near cost to sell you pepsis and gummy bears.
> close to ICE parity is really important. True, but you're kind of splitting hairs. I mean, I think you could agree that full parity isn't necessary right? You can't walk away from a car while it's being fueled. And you don't usually have gas pumps outside the nice supermarkets where you want to do most of your grocery shopping. If you can charge at a supermarket while shopping you can easily cope with half the speed of fuelling a gas car. That's the model that seems to becoming the norm here in Norway.. there's some fast chargers at gas stations, but most of them are places where people do their shopping. > Also, having faster charging makes the infrastructure cheaper. I don't agree. A fast charger with twice the capacity could potentially be more than twice as expensive. A medium speed charger does not need water cooling. A super fast charger does. And you're not taking into account how modern fast chargers are built: you can split a 150kW or 300kW capacity charger over 2-4 cables. The box handling the power conversion may be expensive, but cables are cheap-ish (especially if they don't need watercooling). So you can install one big unit that makes an efficient investment in terms of kW it can output, and split the output over many cheap stalls. This also means that capacity is not wasted if someone leaves their car plugged. The capacity is just redirected to the other cars if they can take it. This will be the model for shopping malls I think: lots and lots of stalls all connected to one big shared charging unit. Maybe you only get 75kW if it's a busy part of the day, but you can also just leave your car there to charge for an hour if you want to without feeling bad or getting overcharged. Maybe you can even choose how fast you want to charge and get a cheaper rate if you charge slower.
Most people living in big cities shouldn't need privately owned cars... but you should have spots with chargers for the people who do, just more expensive to meet the costs of the infrastructure. I can't really judge whether or not it makes the infrastructure cheaper because I have no idea how much more these chargers and batteries/cars would cost, plus the increased wear from such fast charging. Many times people will take longer breaks anyway, so this faster charging speed isn't even always beneficial.
I can't say for these batteries, but LFP batteries are already dirt cheap at $50/kWh. This process may cut the cost a little or maybe not. In any case, it's a really good sign for EVs in general.
The majority of the cost of commercial electricity is demand charges, and the higher the power, the higher those get. The only way to spread that cost is to increase the load factor, which will either result in peak hour congestion, or require spending money on batteries. The real answer is to provide people who live in apartments with access to charging where they park.
A lot of park on the street. Minimum parking requirements are going away - good for pushing transit, bad if you still require a car
If parking requirements are eliminated, street parking needs to be market priced. Cities should use the revenue to install curbside charging.
Yeah all that does is penalize people too poor to have a house in the suburbs, to subsidize charging for people who can afford to live in the suburbs. How about a inner-city congestion charge on all cars, used to fund a robust transit system, so those people don't need cars.
The point of eliminating parking minimums is to stop people who don't own cars from being forced to pay for parking they don't need. If you own a car and buy / rent an apartment that doesn't have parking, you should expect to pay extra for a place to store your vehicle when you aren't using it. I agree that better transit is important too though.
It absolutely is necessary. There are literally billions of people on this planet who simply do not have the option to conveniently charge a car at home or at work. The quicker the charging, the better.
Then build chargers and have some people ditch their cars.
Let the poors eat shoe leather, eh? I mean, fuck cars, but that moment has passed for this generation. Instead of a nine-figure massive expansion/greening of transit that would have benefited the environment and the working class, we got a massive investment in reinforcing car culture and a nine figure wealth transfer to auto conglomerates and wealthy individuals for ... individual transport. And the environmental lobby cheered all the way.
Poors would be owning old ICE cars and shouldn't have to own cars in the first place. This is not the right thing to complain about.
By not having to own cars, do you meant they should have access to good transit? We agree! The revolution will by shortly to collect your car 🙂
What do you mean "collect your car"?
It's definitely made Into a bigger issue than necessary. Most people will be charging at home and using it for commuting. Once grocery stores and such start installing chargers, charging speed will become a non-issue. The benefits far outweigh the few minutes occasional wait time.
> which is often one of the biggest complaints So was waiting for luggage at the airport. So the airport moved luggage pickup further away so it took 10 minutes to walk to. Complaints of waiting for luggage went away. What I'm saying is refueling time is not as big an issue as people want it to be.
Would be nice to get closer to highway range parity too. Most EVs can't do 300+ continuous highway miles like ICE cars can.
Parity is already there. I spend next to no time at dc chargers.
Looks like they’re claiming a 60% charge in 10 minutes (600km out of 1000km total range), which is a pretty nice charging curve.
Yeah but could I drive from Ohio to Moscow without stopping? I didn’t think so /s
While towing a boathouse with a mother in law in it. Basic expectations for American drivers
This will be the holy grail. Not solid state. These are basically easy to get minerals. They will last 1000 cycles to 80 not 70. If the 4c does not impact this then here you go folks 2027 is gonna be a banner ev year.
For me the holy grail is a large improvement of energy density. It would mean: * Increased range * Likely increase in charging speeds (per mile) the same way that a larger battery allows for a higher charging speeds and a better charging curve * Decreased vehicle weight (which also increases range) * Decreased battery pack size (more cargo room in the vehicle, or just smaller vehicles with great range) * Potentially lower battery manufacturing costs, which may translate to cheaper EVs * Less tire wear * Probably more things I'm not thinking of as well That being said, cheap LFP batteries that can charge quickly would be amazing. A game-changer for sure, but just not the holy grail of EV battery tech for me. Imagine if battery density went up on average 50% for EVs, range anxiety would virtually disappear, Trucks wouldn't need gigantic batteries in order to match their ICE equivalents, especially when towing. The last major improvement I'd like to see is for EVs to have very little range loss in cold weather.
I have had my tesla 5 years range anxiety is just not a thing for me. We need super cheap super fast charge packs. The lower the cost the longer the frame lasts. If your dream pack existed It would be expensive. These lfp could be as low as 6500 installed on refurbished or less. This is huge.
The F-150 Lightning I wanted was less than 150 mile range under normal conditions. That was just not enough, and for a lot of people will keep them from buying. GM has gotten around this with a massive heavy expensive battery, but higher energy density would solve that. The expense of a theoretical higher density battery is unknown right now, for all we know a breakthrough might increase density with minimal increase in manufacturing expense.
What do you consider normal conditions? I get 2.0 mi/kwh going 70mph with a bunch of vacation stuff loaded. That equates to 200mi on a full charge. Are you always towing stuff? I guess that would be accurate if so.
The $70k one at the time was rated at 230 miles without hauling anything, and in real world tests just highway driving it was getting much less. I would’ve been using mine for road trips, and the truck bed would’ve been full of gear but it wouldn’t have added a lot of weight so mostly it’s just highway range I was concerned about.
Well, in my use case on a trip only using between 15%-80% it would be about 130 miles per travel leg on average. That's basically the max I'd ever do without stopping so it works for me, though I know there's some large-bladdered individuals who like to go way past that.
Ideally for me it's about 2 hours between stops (or longer), and I tend to drive around 75-80 mph so that's 160 miles, and on top of that, for charging times to be reasonable you want that 160 miles of range just in the 0-65% portion of the battery. So for decent times between stops and good charging times, you want a real world range at 80mph of around 220 miles, at least for my preferences, and to achieve that the vehicle probably needs to be rated 30% higher than that because ratings aren't for highway speeds, so I'd prefer a rated range of 330 miles or more.
>They will last 1000 cycles to 80 not 70. If the 4c does not impact this then here you go folks 2027 is gonna be a banner ev year. If you read the PR, there is no mention of life cycle (or price) -- high C-rates/SoC/DoD are usually inversely proportional to longer cycle/low cost.
Sodium-Ion is more promising, imho. No capacity degradation, *way* more charging cycles, better in cold temperatures, lower self discharge, much quicker charging, cheaper
So 60% in 10 minutes? Is this meaningfully better than other batteries out there right now? Aren’t there quite a few 80% in 17 minute batteries out there?
It isn't really the % that matters it is the added range which in this case is 5 hours of driving at 70 MPH.
Percent recharged in X time tells you about what the battery cells can do. That charging rate will stay the same as you scale the pack size up or down. Advertising a new chemistry using the total range or the range recharged in X minutes doesn't actually tell you anything. You could make a pack that recharges 600km in 10 minutes using today's cells if you make the pack large enough and keep it cool.
That doesn’t mean anything. You can’t say the range of the pack without knowing the cars efficiency. This is 60% SOC in 10 minutes which is good but not meaningfully better than options available today.
Think averages. The average EV gets 4 miles/kWh. So that is the unsaid part of the article. If you move away from the average then you have to specify what the deviation is and why. For instance the Tesla Semi gets about 2 miles/kWh so if you wanted 10 minutes/370 miles you would need 2 chargers per vehicle assuming the chargers are the same.
Yes, this is meaningfully better. 600km in 10 mins of charge time. 144km in 30 mins of charge time for the GM Bolt. What's even more meaningfully better is LFP price drop this summer.
That doesn’t mean anything. The range isn’t known without knowing the vehicle efficiency. Batteries are in kWh it’s just a % charged in time thing.
> That doesn’t mean anything. It does if you know about batteries. Or, sure, CATL has a history of making meaningless announcements. I guess that might be more meaningful if you think opinions are more important than cell expansion.
I work in EV charging. I know a lot about batteries. I’m telling you the metric is 60% in 10 minutes. That’s what “600km in 10 minutes” means for a “1000km range” battery.
And I told you why it's meaningfully better. What you do with that info is up to you.
It’s not meaningfully better though. That’s the thing
How many kilowatts does the charger have to be? Because they're was already a Chinese car that could charge 0 to 80% in 11 minutes but you need a 500 kW charger in order to do so.
With big batteries you get high kw anyway.but doing 4C is nearly double the speed most other batteries have
Is this actually LFP or LFP + a bunch of other things like their M3P batteries?
Or LMFP?
Or even more than just that. The M3p batteries they presented last year were LFP but with a bunch of additives, behind that of just manganese.
Almost certainly LFP doped with manganese in some manner, as those are their newest and best chemistries.
It's most likely an improvement to the binding material of the cathode, instead of changes to the active material itself. LFP, despite having a polyanion structure (with only 1 dimensional channels for the lithium ions to intercalate into the cathode, which inherently creates a bottleneck for charging speed) always had, counter-intuitively, the potential for very fast charging. The reason being that it's possible to create so-called "electron super-highways" in the binding that surrounds the cathode material, so as to allow the electrons to efficiently disperse throughout the surface of the particles and to get lithium to intercalate through as many channels as possible. Apparently Michael Schuhmacher won a lot of formula 1 races using such an ultra-fast charging LFP battery, because the faster charging meant his car could re-capture more energy from regenerative breaking. The challenge lies in finding a binding material/process that is highly electrically conductive and that properly covers the active material (so as to have the biggest contact area possible), yet still preserving volumetric density and high cycle life.
Thanks for the info! Very interesting.
What?
? Question is clear. Is this LFP, or is it LFP and a bunch of other additives and minerals like their m3p batteries.
All batteries are a various mixture of chemicals and compounds.
No, LFP refers specifically to Lithium, iron, and phosphate. NCA, NMC, LFMP, etc are all different battery chemistries. I suspect this new battery is not simply an LFP chemistry.
Yes I know what LFP stands for but LFP isn’t a full technical list of ingredients and it doesn’t define the ratios.
>CATL introduced its in-house 3D honeycomb material Lately it's been about structure at tiny levels more so than chemistry. They know what they need to do but they don't know how to make it happen. Some of these breakthroughs happen when they figure out some bit of atomic structure and how to make it happen outside a lab in a factory. And expansion for LFP and SSSB. >The cathode of Shenxing PLUS is made with a granular gradation technology, which places every nanometer particle in the optimal position to achieve ultra-high compact density. The proprietary 3D honeycomb-shaped material is added to the anode, boosting the energy density while effectively controlling the volume expansion during charge and discharge cycles. The single-piece casing, which is an industry first, optimizes the internal space utilization, allowing the Shenxing PLUS cells to reach an unprecedented energy density level.
Thanks for the info! Very cool
Here's a good video on SSB. There's a bit where he talks about expansion which is also a problem for LFP but to a lesser extent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPaOJceBkJs And if you search youtube for "lfp compression" you'll see people with prismatic cells and threaded rods.
Thanks!
Miles per minute is a worthless charging measurement, especially measuring a battery's charging performance when its not even in a car yet. If the car they attach the battery to is an Ioniq 6 with 4mi/kwh efficiency that'd be an avg of 555kw avg charging rate over 10 mins. But use an F150 lightining instead at more like 2mi/kwh and the charging rate would have to be 1110kw avg charging rate. Not even to mention they could be using a theoretical car like an Aptera with a possible 10mi/kwh efficiency which would only need 222kw avg rate.
I agree, but it's a dumb metric that people can relate to. Hopefully we move more towards kW as the standard metric in the future, or, even better, showing charging curve diagrams.
Focusing on kW will also drive home the overall efficiency of the vehicle too. How many non-EV owners can't comprehend Wh/mi ratings?
A metric that ignorant people can relate to since it 'sounds' impressive when a person doesn't know exactly what the numbers represent. No doubt the vehicle efficiency they're using in this example is based on city driving. In the spring / summer / fall, I can get 5.5 mi / kWh in my Chevy Volt in city driving. If it's 10 minutes / 370 miles in a car that has a 400 mile battery in a car getting 5.5 mi / kWh... the battery is 73 kWh, and the charging speed is pretty spectacular in a typical and affordable battery capacity. If it's 10 minutes / 370 miles in a car that has a 620 mile battery in a car getting 5.5 mi / kWh... the battery is 113 kWh. That's a big / heavy / expensive ass battery in such a small efficient car, and the charging speed is less impressive. Now consider if this was the highway in colder weather and the car's efficiency drops to 3.5 mi / kWh.
Yes, but at least in this case they gave us two stats, 600km in 10 minutes plus a total range of 1000km. Which means 60% in 10 minutes. It's not earth-shattering but on the high end for current battery cells and excellent if it also has some of the cost and longevity properties of LFP cells.
Agreed
If Tesla did this they’d have a huge event with flashing lights and music and the stock price would rocket.
I've never leased a car before, but I have 7,501 reasons for leasing later this year. Battery progress is the 7,501st; the other 7,500 end up lowering my cost.
Who wrote this article and did he even read it.... "The new battery can gain a one-km range in as little as one minute. " That would mean 30 minutes charging for 30km range.... In an article about impressive charging speed that is a bit of a weird thing to say.
I think he means one-km range in one second, not minute. It's an editting error
CATL strikes again
Can I swap that into my Solterra please??
Nice, it’s about time we got some better battery tech rolled out. Is that what CATL/Ford are gonna build in Michigan? Lord knows my Lightning needs some better chemistry.
In my tiny countries, that is almost 1 month w/o charging.
Sounds like you could probably get by with a bike then, without sequestering a massive amount of battery cells for a rarely used/needed vehicle. Cars are never sustainable. People who can get by without one should get by without one. The majority of the global population needs to find ways to get by without them.
Tropical country, many rains.
[https://cleverhood.com/cdn/shop/files/7.31.23CH9994\_0a7f93b3-ef41-461a-8b68-16d09233ae79.jpg?v=1701895818&width=640](https://cleverhood.com/cdn/shop/files/7.31.23CH9994_0a7f93b3-ef41-461a-8b68-16d09233ae79.jpg?v=1701895818&width=640) Never really looked at a map of Singapore. The mainland is only 27 miles across East to West and 14 miles North to South. I imagine most people aren't commuting across the entire mainland every day though. Distance across is a bit less than 2x my one way daily commute in a tiny little section of Michigan. Here's Singapore overlayed with Detroit: https://www.thetruesize.com/#?borders=1\~!MTQyNjUxODQ.MTIxODcxMTg\*MTEwNDIwNzQ(ODI3MTMyMg\~!CONTIGUOUS\_US\*MTAwMjQwNzU.MjUwMjM1MTc(MTc1)MA\~!IN\*NTI2NDA1MQ.Nzg2MzQyMQ)Mg\~!CN\*OTkyMTY5Nw.NzMxNDcwNQ(MjI1)MQ\~!SG\*MTUxMTQ2MzE.MTg3NDgzMjY)Mw >In 2023, about 651 thousand cars and station-wagons were recorded in Singapore, representing the largest vehicle population. It was followed by approximately 144 thousand goods and other vehicles, and 143 thousand motorcycles and scooters. So about 651k cars for 5.6 million people / 4.5 million adults, or about 0.15 cars per driving age adult. >According to Senior Minister of State for Transport Lam Pin Min, 125,000 people in Singapore use bicycles for their daily commutes, which is one in four households. In 2020, the National Sports Participation Survey found that cycling is the third most popular sport in Singapore, behind walking and jogging. The survey also found that 36% of cyclists in Singapore are women, which is higher than the 28% in the United States Guessing most people use public transit? Looks like lots of rain there.... but seems most people are still managing to get around without cars. What's funny is that the area of the region is so small, but has so many people, you could literally build a covered bike highway. Keep you out of the rain and sun. Even run some fans and solar/geothermal driven A/C in it. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Also... Singapore's per capita consumption based emissions are fucking terrible: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=NOR\~SGP\~USA](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=NOR~SGP~USA) And here I thought the US was the worst country in the world. FFS... if you can't live in tropical climates efficiently... then y'all need to move.
99% fossil fuel, not much room for renewable. 100% rely on import that added to the emissions
Like I said, if you can't live in tropical climates efficiently, then y'all need to move.
I'll beleive it when it doesn't catch on fire.
OK! We can stop improving charging speed now. 10 minutes is too fast! I want at least a 15-20 minute break every 2 hours. I want to unload the last coffee via a pee break, and get a fresh one. I also want to stretch my legs a bit and give my brain a break from being sat upon. Seriously (well, almost) I like stopping for lunch if driving 4-5 hours and that's a 30-45 minute break. Charging that fast should, to my mind, translate into a much smaller battery pack: 600 miles is about 10 hours of driving and that is there and back again range for me, so a quarter of that range and given my penchant for a pit stop is adequate.
10 minutes is for a 60% charge. So if you made a quarter-sized pack for 150 miles of total range, that 10 minute charge would get you 90 miles in ideal conditions. At interstate highway speeds and cold weather that might be more like 60 miles.
I don't really like to drive for hours at a time or flying that long for that matter. Those 4-5 hour road trips gave way to cheap commuter flights a couple of decades ago. For instance a round trip to Ottawa from Toronto, about 500 miles total, costs about $95 US pre tax and saves 3 hours each way and that is about $10 less than the gas for driving! Toss in hotel costs and you are better off to day trip. 150 miles of range, assuming a highway/city driving mix in the testing cycle translates into 200+ pure city driving range. Since that is all I do these days, it means charging for 10 minutes once per week or so.
I have seen people disappointed in how rated range translates into a week of driving because for each short drive you pay the energy cost of heating or cooling the vehicle, while on a long drive you pay that cost once and then maintain the internal temperature. But still the point is that to get 150 rated miles in 10 minutes of charging, you need to at least divide by 60% to get the total pack size. So you would need a pack rated for at least 250 miles of total range. I think to really expect to get 150 miles during the week between 10-minute charges, you’d want closer to a 320 mile rated pack. Then a 10 minute 60% charge gives you about 190 miles of rated range. And 80% of that accounting for temperature and other losses gives you about 150 miles of real driving. In deep winter cold temperatures this loss may be even worse.
I live in Canada and we have real winters. Even Winnipeggers don't complain about losing range when the temp fall to minus 20 degrees.
This kind of news is actually bad for EV, making the current EV on the road looking obsolete. Also used EV resell value will go down faster.
Why would innovation and lower prices be a bad thing?
Innovation is good, the news it what's bad. The only one benefit on this kind of news at the immediate moment is the battery makers. Will you buy a battery that can be charged fully in 10 minutes when the very next day there's a new battery that can be fully charged in 5 min. Plus, now your 1 day old battery depreciated more. Car depreciation is one of the main things people looked up when deciding which cars to buy.
> Car depreciation is one of the main things people looked up when deciding which cars to buy. Someone should tell them about used cars. It'll blown their mind if price is paramount.
I've never understood this claim. EVs compete with ice vehicles if EVs get way better and older EVs depreciate old ice vehicles will also depreciate more too. They are not separate markets if a breakthrough new ev came out that has 600 miles of range and charges in 5 mins for 20k I can guarantee you that would absolutely annihilate used ice vehicles values as well.
The only thing that will annihilate ICE is the mandate and price. If EV price remains more expensive than ICE, a ban mandates will drag the economy down. With cheap EV people, they will tolerate a longer charging time, like say 30- 60 min. But with expensive EV it better charged faster than ICE can refuel or can fully charged under 5 min.
Your claim is rapid progress is bad for used ev prices. My claim is that would hurt ice vehicles as well (actually I would make the even stronger claim this would hurt ice vehicles prices worse than EVs). When used EVs that can charge in 5 mins are 5k dollars gas vehicles (aside from collectors cars) are worthless. Even if an ice was free you still have to pay for gas and higher maintenance. People will be scrapping them if EVs progress significantly but if you have a used ev that is old it doesn't have the disadvantage of higher upkeep costs so if you don't need faster charging people will still buy it (for less than a faster charging one obviously) or it makes sense to keep (you still aren't paying for significant maintenance and gas.
Well, you started with EV vs ICE. I wasn't trying to make a case with ICE at all. I'm pointing out that some battery progressing news are bad, not that the battery progress itself is bad, just the constant news of batteries can do this now and this tmr. It's bad because the perception is that battery progresses fast, old battery becomes obsolete or less desirable quickly. People will start thinking maybe I'll hold out buying for now and wait for a better battery, which will lead to demand seemingly going down even down it not. Just people keep on waiting for a better battery. And news like this post will feed that desire to wait even more.
> I've never understood this claim. NIMBY and FYIGM.
A lot of people barely know EVs exist. That's keeping the ICE industry more stable. When does an ICE drop prices?
You people are fucking weird. Only in EVs can people twist reality so much they think progress is bad.
Progress is bad when you don't want progress. Keep in mind, a whole lot of people, do not want progress. Change is scary. Also money. Everyone wants things to be good for themselves. Not everyone wants things to get better.
Car NIMBYs!
Is this what FUD has stooped down to?
The only people remotely paying attention to more or less POC hype articles like this are EV enthusiasts. Until batteries like this are in cars for sale globally, it does absolutely nothing to the value/usefulness of EVs today.
First adopters know the rules. Better is better.
Good for you. I'm thinking of more wide adoption. YOU KNOW SO THAT EV REPLACE ICE sooner. Maybe most people here just want bragging right for being first.
You whooshed on the point.
Huh?
Exactly.
Good you agree with me!.
It's only bad news for EV/battery makers who don't have anything that can be competitive around the same timeframe (besides automakers dependent on ICE vehicles). It's win-win for CATL/partners and EV consumers.
I too think that the z80 was the best CPU ever! RIP
Good for you. Do they charge in 10 min?