Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Tesla Model S Goes 752 Miles with a Startup's Prototype Battery (caranddriver.com)
71 points by elorant 17 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 100 comments



The key points:

tests were averaging 55 mph

the battery pack has twice the capacity and is twice as dense, allowing it to fit in the same space as the stock battery, and delivers the same performance

so it is impressive and useful, not really much scifi here which is good, its just a double capacity battery in the same space that delivers the same performance

definitely has now reached the range I'm looking for. make it happen, and somebody please just make classic car shells have these batteries in them. I don't understand why its just tesla, a couple of other luxury car brands that cost twice or thrice as much for worse charging service, or luxury car brands that decided to make a fugly tron-esque version of their car instead of just doing the same thing they're known for with a battery under the hood. intentionally ignoring the cheaper vehicles because they're not in the running either.


It's also much heavier and much more expensive. This really isn't a breakthrough more than it is a special case optimization. Any new design could easily have accommodated a similar capacity battery with traditional construction just by making the car 2cm taller or whatever.

I mean, lithium batteries are already pretty space-efficient. This kind of optimization surely has a home in some application (to be clear: it already does in consumer electronics!). I'm just not sure cars are where it's best applied.


Numbers:

Tesla Model S: 4600 lbs (Original battery: 1323 lbs) https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s-weight/

Gemini Battery: additional 730 lbs https://www.carhp.com/news/one-s-prototype-battery-registers...


Curious if they bothered to comply with the GVWR for the vehicle.

An extra 730lbs is most of the typical payload capacity for a typical car.

The model S has a GVWR of 5600lbs and weighs about 4600lbs meaning you can only put about 1000lbs of stuff in/on it safely.

With this extra battery weight there isn’t enough capacity left to carry more that two typical adults let alone any luggage.


It's almost like Tesla has to optimize for more than just raw battery performance.


>1323 & 730 lb

Jeeez. That’s almost the curb weight of my Miata.


But, interestingly, miata's get pretty boring fuel economy given their size.

I'd call it downright bad if you're looking at earlier models.


Thx. I guess they were only interested in cars and not battery. Hence the article was rather poor. I was thinking where are you getting these data from as the article doesn't include much information. Some reply below showed added 700Lb to the car.


does the weight impact anything consequential? I guess perhaps acceleration and handling? But I'm not sure the article went into that

I just want a car that does what is described, ideally without other tradeoffs. I would consider paying a premium for that, to an extent. I mean Tesla has been teasing Roadsters w/ 600 miles per charge at $250,000 for 5 years now. So someone just do the thing and make the option.


weight impacts everything; acceleration, handling, braking performance, brake wear , tire wear, road wear, generally increased NVH if the weight gain isn't part of the superstructure, drive train loads, consumable suspension (bushings/wear items) wear ..

the list goes on, but you get the point.

it's all a cost/benefit ratio between duration/range/cost/marketability/reliability ; you can take care of the technical issues behind weight gain, but is there still a market there once you do and the cost to produce skyrockets?


Is range consequential to you? The battery pack's already quite heavy (>1,200 lbs) and it takes both power and energy to move that much weight around. The bigger the pack, the more of both it takes to move it. The 100 kWh battery already gets 400 miles per charge. Doubling the battery pack with existing technology isn't going to get double the range. At some point there are diminishing returns where adding more batteries reduces the range due to the added weight.

Also keep in mind that with an electric car, most users will use a home charger and start each day at full charge (even the slow charger can manage this if you're getting enough sleep). At the article's state 55 mph to get their range, it would take just over 7 hours of driving to go 400 miles. That's plenty for daily, non-fleet use.


I don't want double, I want 20-25% more. That will cover all my edge cases.


> does the weight impact anything consequential?

Kinetic energy. That could make collisions more dangerous (though I’m not sure by how much)


There is Opel Corsa-e, its brother Peugeot e-208, there is VW e-Golf, Renault Zoe (a bestseller). The problem is they are much too expensive for their segment. So manufacturers try to make those fancy cars, because the price is easier to swallow. It will change, but cars in general will get more expensive. Maybe within 10 years it will get to some sensible stabilization.


Are the safety parameters the same? Would it overheat more easily?


Tesla designed the entire chassis around the battery pack (as in, it's structural component). Traditional car companies are going to have to do a lot of very expensive retooling to something similar.


Traditional car companies moved to "platform" based vehicles 20 years ago and they refresh the entire platform every 5-ish years. This isn't really a big deal for any of them as evidenced by both Ford and GM already rolling out EV platforms.

"There's no way GM can build a sub-$100k mid engine Corvette" was a common refrain too. They didn't get to that size by being bad at designing cars.


They don't retool the factory every 5 years... I think you're underestimating things a bit.

Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?


>They don't retool the factory every 5 years... I think you're underestimating things a bit.

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/a15539/rebuildi...

https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/ford-prepares-to-ret...

>Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?

Yes, they did integrate the battery pack into the chassis on both the mach-e and the lightning.

https://s3-prod.rubbernews.com/s3fs-public/styles/width_792/...


They're constantly retooling their factories. My dad worked at several GM factories for nearly 40 years. I feel like every year or two GM would announce a huge spend per factory to retool/upgrade/etc.


There are a lot of different things one can mean by that. that "structural pack" that elon has been talking about doesn't go live until the new Model Y chassis starts being built, which is maybe today?

The current level of tesla's battery/chassis integration is not any more sophisticated than everyone else that I can see.


It took few years for traditional auto to learn that Tesla-style dedicated EV platform is the way to go, but they are doing it now. Their first EVs were ICE cars "converted" to electric (e.g. e-Golf) but VW now has their ID-platform, for example.


I'm curious how they cool it under heavy performance load. I'm assuming they're making a significant performance compromise to extend range by limiting discharge speed/heat production.


I'm trying to decide if this is anything special or just sleight of hand.

I really do NOT know the figures, but I thought Tesla's only charged the cells to 80% and discharged to 20% to save battery life. If you are doing a one off test, you could go from 100%-0% to get 40% more battery life. And the article talks about fancy chemistries, but then says:

"As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development."

So they used what might be normal high capacity cells. Maybe their battery has fewer structural components so they can fit more cells in. Maybe Tesla uses a different chemistry for longer pack life.

It seems like anyone could get maybe 40% more range doing nothing at all by simply fully charging and fully depleting the cells, and if you took the highest possible energy density cells and shoved them in to the same space with less structural members, maybe you could get the rest of the range they claimed. In fact it seems like that's what they did.

But that's not an innovation if the pack will wear out in a year, or weaken the structure of the car.

Like I said I am just speculating here and I don't really know, but so far this doesn't actually seem like the company has anything special. I have a feeling that if Tesla wanted to, they could do the same thing for a single demo, but that they have competing engineering requirements that mean they don't do this in production.


You can set the charge amount, it's not just that percentage change. This isn't so hard to imagine. When I go on a long trip in my s85d car from 2015, I set it to charge to 100%. It hasn't hurt my battery life, model s that is 7 years old and 65k miles. I get ~5 miles less than original battery range at full. My day to day is 90%.

You are exactly right that it's not an innovation if the battery can't last similar to almost 10 year's ago lithium batteries with heating and cooling of the battery packs.

I think this is achievable today, just by doubling the battery pack (which would take some more space, so maybe these folks have something). Tesla's plan for the ever delayed new roadster was basically put two levels of their battery pack (double it) to get more energy to go faster, but all that energy made it go much further - not double range because of the added weight but a lot farther than a single battery pack.


Only 5 miles less? That's wild. I have a Model 3 and I get like... 30 miles less than the original 300 at 100%.


Well the article says that the battery capacity has gone from ~100kWh to ~200kWh… so I think they’re actually talking real increased battery capacity?


I am wondering if, when Tesla sells a car as "100kWh", that is the available capacity (80%-20%) or if the total pack capacity. There would be reasons why they would want to go either way.

But I think the biggest difference is probably that there are known high capacity chemistries with shorter longevity, which can be safely ignored for a one off test to drum up press for investors.


Total battery capacity. Tesla are know for not hiding battery capacity, and instead using UI to strongly hint you shouldn’t charge past 80% under normal usage.

The exception to this rule is cars sold with a lower capacity, where the battery is capacity is software locked. But that’s a market segmentation thing, not a battery protection thing. I also think there was only a short period where this happened on the Model S. These days Tesla has the scale where it’s more economical to have multiple battery versions for each capacity, than it is to reduce manufacturing complexity with fewer SKUs (and software lock the battery).


It's good to see some progress in this area, but

Can it do that after 5 years of use? At 5 degrees F? Can it charge in 5 minutes? Even the cheapest gas powered cars can do this.

This sort of performance may not matter to you if you only commute to work and back, but its the kind of performance that many people need on a day-to-day basis.


Curious to see what a more realistic 75mph highway driving test would show. Guessing around 600 miles which is very impressive. Seems like a nobrainer for Tesla to acquire them if their claims pan out.


It's not only the range that matters though. These batteries have a lot of cobalt, and Tesla is moving away from that. Moreover, we don't know how fast they charge, how many cycles they can be used, if they can be used in cold climates, how fire-prone they are, and maybe 10 other things that Tesla needs to consider for their production batteries.

But yes, if all those other things are decent enough, Tesla obviously has the money to acquire this startup.


> These batteries have a lot of cobalt

Not according to the article:

"In practice, that means lithium iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistry, which historically has energy density 30 percent lower than cobalt- or nickel-based chemistries (and, unfortunately, reportedly cold-weather issues). Its first product, Aries, will go into production late this year. It's a battery using prismatic LFP cells in a structural cell-to-pack architecture without separate modules, packing more cells into the pack to lower the energy disadvantage against cobalt cells."


That statement is about the other battery mentioned on their website, the "aries". The "gemini" which is what is in the linked article is a combination LFP and NMC. NMC batteries are the ones with large amounts of cobalt.


Now I see it:

> "The cathode will be made of a proprietary material rich in manganese that ONE says can be sustainably sourced at low cost. (The company has so far applied for 14 patents related to the Gemini pack.) The LFP cells cover 99 percent of the vehicle’s duty cycle, Ijaz told C/D, and the range extender is used for just 1 percent.

> As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development."

So this was just an energy density demonstration. It does sound like they plan to use LFP cells, not cobalt-nickel, for the production batteries.


As I understand it, LFP cells have a lower energy density compared to cobalt. Is this company claiming they can build a 200kwh LFP battery that takes up the same amount of space as a stock model S battery?


That's their goal as I understand from this paragraph:

> "The company dubs its prototype a proof of concept. The point is to show that real-world ranges far longer than an average driver's endurance (pit stops, ahem) can be achieved in the near future. The next step is for it to evolve into a new battery called Gemini, intended to go into production after 2023."

They don't say whether it is LFP based though.


They just completed a significant distance test in Michigan during December so I'm guessing they operate ok in cold weather.


I found a chart once where someone measured efficiency of some EV or another. And the rule of thumb was that the cars hit peak energy/distance efficiency at 40-45mph and drop to about half that at 90mph.

Which would amusingly put your 600 mile guess just about dead on.


I'd expect the Speed vs. MPG graphs for many conventional (gasoline or diesel engine) cars to be similar. Air resistance (of a given vehicle) is roughly proportional to the square of the velocity. And air resistance (or drag, to be more technical) doesn't care whether the car's wheels are being powered by batteries, burning fuel, or a wound-up giant spring.


All cars have to deal with the v squared air resistance, but EVs also have motors that get less efficient at higher speeds, and the more power you draw, the hotter your battery gets and that's a negative too. So really everything is aligned to punish you for going faster than a threshold speed.

With a convential vehicle, it's not so simple. A lot of things get worse, but engine efficiency is usually better with higher temperatures (which is why the VW TDI NOx emissions fix results in more CO2 emissions; NOx is a result of nitrogen in outside air being exposed to the hot engine, lowering the temperature reduces fuel efficiency and NOx production), and the gearing is designed to get maxium fuel efficiency at higher speeds. Of course, if it would be commercially acceptable, an engine and gearing could be designed to get max efficiency at a lower speed and have a 40 mph super efficient vehicle. Hybrids can do a lot better at running the engine near peak efficiency or having the engine off, allowing for higher mpg all over the speed spectrum.


Air resistance starts very low though, until fairly high speeds other factors (e.g. rolling resistance) matter more. Weight is also relevant for climbing hills (more so for ICE which don’t reclaim any energy on the other side), …


Rule of thumb: An gas or diesel vehicle will be most efficient at the lowest speed that it can travel in the highest gear. That's usually around 45.


Founder came from A123 which Tesla indeed acquired. I wonder if Tesla already has the tech/know-how in-house?


A123 has not been acquired by Tesla. A123 is owned by Wanxiang America.


I can't find any articles suggesting Tesla acquired A123.


Super high capacity batteries are just a poor solution to the range problem. How often are you going to drive 750 miles without stopping? Maybe a few times a year tops, likely less. The overwhelming majority of driving is over dramatically shorter distances - the average American motorist drives a little under 30 miles per day, and typically they're driving less than half that between long periods of being parked. It doesn't make sense to pay for 20 times more battery than you need just to use it <1% of the time. Further, batteries are low energy density, and you're just lugging all that excess weight around everywhere. And remember, battery production produces CO2: producing an extra 100 kwh of battery is equivalent to about 27,000 miles of driving on gasoline.

Plug in hybrids let you drive around emission free for the overwhelming majority of situations at a fraction of the cost, but without the range anxiety. You only burn gas on long trips, and you can go as far as you want with easy refueling. Combustion fuels have immensely greater energy density than batteries, so carrying a few hundred miles of extra range around, either in your main tank or in a jerrycan, doesn't have a serious impact on weight, and ICEs are not nearly as temperature sensitive as batteries so you don't get screwed over in the winter. And for series hybrids like the chevy Volt, you get both the handling and efficiency of an electric vehicle even when on gasoline power. With federal tax credits plug in hybrid versions of many cars are actually cheaper than gasoline-only versions of the same models.

There may be a serious argument for people who don't need long range (for example those buying a second car) to forego the engine altogether and just get an electric vehicle with a little longer range, but if ~200 miles isn't enough range for you then just go with the hybrid.


Ugh, no thanks. You can keep your dinosaurs. I've been full EV for several years now, and I can't fathom going back.

Also, winter is a non-issue. Take it from someone living where it gets quite cold.

Time to put aside your toys and embrace the future :)


Hey man, you're the one burning more fossil fuels. I burn about 28 gallons of gasoline per year, which combined with my 18 kWh battery's production, amortized over its expected lifetime, and my car's engine's production amortized over the same period, means I release 1.09 metric tons of CO2 per year (we'll be conservative and assume we emit the same amount of CO2 due to electric driving, even though my car is going fewer miles with less weight, so that cancels out). Producing a 40 kWh battery, the smallest size in common use, again amortized over its lifetime, releases 1.52 metric tons of CO2 per year. Producing a 100 kWh battery, such as in the Tesla Model X, would emit about 3.80 metric tons of CO2 per year.

Greener, cheaper, more convenient - plug in hybrids are the way to go.


No way are we going to have battery powered cars as a future. Its just shifting the problem from consumer side (ICE pollution) to(Battery) production side. Also many countries still use coal etc to produce power. Fuel cells are the true future.


I mean, you're wrong: EVs are everywhere. I can't even drive around town without seeing them everywhere. People have spoken, and they don't want fuel cells. They want EVs.


Where silicon valley ?which is obviously not equal to the humans of entire planet or you must be dreaming. I don’t even see EVs around me, rarely I spot them, Im from a developing country. AND People in the past have spoken the same about ICEs yet here we are. Just because its barely on a hype now doesn’t mean its clean and is the future, LOL. The batteries are just as dirty to build and inefficient in long term, they don’t even have half the density of ICEs fuels. Show me a heavy duty truck or machinery thats battery based that can match the ICEs.

Edit: Just to be clear Im not even supporting ICEs, Im against the duct tape measures for a problem thats already causing lot of problems. It would rather be awesome if EVs are actually built on something clean from production to daily usage. In some countries the EVs even outweigh the benefits they provide since the power grid is old school. Also mining the current battery minerals is not clean in one bit.


No, I'm based in a relatively minor midwestern US city. You might not see it yet, but developing countries will soon see the same EV wave as here.

RE: dirty batteries. I'll take relatively minor environmental damage that can be confined to one spot any day of the week over literally spewing toxic fumes into everybody else's lungs and heating up the entire damn globe. That's a no-brainer. And the sooner we can move to nuclear + renewables to power everything, including battery construction, the better.


Logic is taking a huge hit, ever heard of air currents, what makes u think its confined to small spots? Ever heard of law of conservation of energy? The power required to generate EV doesn’t magically appear it requires equal amount of power generation plants. And right now its not clean and the switch will take decades. No EV wave is not gonna happen with a flick of a switch, battery minerals are still limited and their production is not easy either. Batteries need significant amount of change before they’re viable alternative. Else its just a duct tape measure before we find an alternative. And nuclear is already being banned in many countries, plus it has its own head aches. Renewables? I doubt how many countries are even considering it apart from a handful.


With twice the energy density, what would its performance be like in a crash?

Did they actually do tests to validate that the battery would be safe in the event of a minor crash, before driving it on public roads?


This battery probably doesn't have much in the way of safety. It's a one off prototype meant for PR, not for production.


As a limited set of tests, I don't think this is a huge issue. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of trucks full of petrol (Or other highly hazardous materials) driving around on highways and city streets (and occasionally getting into crashes) on a daily basis.

It's more of a consideration when you put the car into the hands of consumers.


The website didn't load for me for some reason https://outline.com/pdWGMH


Increased energy density is great, but what’s the point of carrying an extra 600-1,000lb of batteries around when for the vast majority of people the extra range is only used in a handful of cases per year, if that.

Lots of consumers seem to be waiting on the sidelines until some magic range number is achieved (500? 1,000?), when in practice that range is unneeded on a daily basis. It’s like demanding a all-day battery from a laptop, only to leave it plugged in all day long anyway.


I don’t think it’s quite that. Gas cars have a typical range near 400mi. From what I can tell, most electric cars are under that, or just very recently getting to that number. (So I guess we can say range is solved now!)

Having recently explored it, electric cars are very nearly but not quite ahead in a few areas:

- Electric or plug-in hybrids are still typically a more expensive option. For example, the RAV4 has a plug-in hybrid option, or just hybrid, but both of those are a fair amount more expensive than competing compact SUVs.

- Infrastructure. Electric cars become practical when you can charge overnight at home. For many people, the cost of getting electric service retrofitted is too expensive, and many others are renters with no way to charge at home. Beyond that, charging on roadtrips is very hit or miss unless you have a Tesla. (And as a side note, with poor charging infra, longer range becomes more important.)

Of course, both of these problems are close to being solved, but they add extra considerations that people don’t have to make with gas cars.

Anyways, main point: I think consumers are waiting for other reasons than 500mi range.


Increased density could help with packaging. You can already see this with the Lucid Air, which has a very deep frunk and trunk, as well as deep footwells. The Air also has full-size interior volume but with the vehicle length of a mid-size car. Better packaging enables sedan-shaped EVs, and also can enable crossover EVs with better ride height (since their skateboard can be thinner).

This could also enable removable battery modules. I could envision an EV with 150-200 mile range for everyday driving, with additional batteries kept at home connected to energy storage (like a Tesla Powerwall). When you want to go on a road trip, you just disconnect the modules and install them in the lower part of the frunk and trunk. The packs could also have other uses - you could load one into an electric motorcycle (much like the Zero Motorcycle already can). If you're desperate for a charge but don't have a plug near a parking spot, you can lug a module to a wall outlet. And we've seen how additional batteries enables additional current (and therefore performance), so EV sports cars could be lower-horsepower "daily drivers" until you install the batteries for a weekend drive.


> when in practice that range is unneeded on a daily basis

Which is great if you have space for and can afford two cars.

But if you don’t and / or can’t, you need your one car to handle both your daily driving needs and the odd long range trip.

> It’s like demanding a all-day battery from a laptop, only to leave it plugged in all day long anyway.

Which i’m reasonably sure is what’s happening to many MBPs, but if you do actually meed the odd all-day battery… then you do need it.


I understand that most people just wait for their peers to switch to EV first and they'll only make the move when >X persons around them place an order and confirm from experience that EVs are the way to go. They avoid taking risk with what appears to be "unproven" technology that happens to cost a significant % of their household's wealth.

I've never owned (or needed a car) so I can't speak for myself, but my family and friends are 100% convinced that BEV are the future, and they also have the means to buy one now. They just tell themselves that they must wait for their neighbors to buy an EV first and hear first hand that charging is indeed not an issue before making the switch. It's a chicken or the egg problem and in the meantime, they're fine with purchasing plugins (even though they know it's a worse choice and that the plugin will depreciate faster)

Most people are simply risk-averse and they are enough early-adopters queuing for a Tesla delivery. So EV adoption can't go faster than Tesla can build factories and pump out cars. The early majority will follow suit.


If you're using a car for everyday short trips then, unless you have some kind of mobility impediment, you're doing it wrong.


Or, you perception is only specific to your limited experience.

My "every day" short trips (I claim that's < 100 miles total) are, going to work (70 miles round trip), going out on the weekends (almost always < 60 miles, to get to the beach) going to the grocery store (5 miles, with ~40lbs of groceries, with steep hills).

Maybe this is a US thing, but I definitely can't do any of these things with my feet, in a reasonable amount of time. I also can't afford to live anywhere closer to work (getting within biking distance means a few million dollars, for a home, or my three bedroom mortgage for a single bedroom apartment), or next to a grocery store (there's no housing available there).

But, I can easily do all of this within the range of my 100 mile electric car, that I purchased for $8k.

Is it affordable to live close to work, in other countries? In the US, if you're in tech, you're paying a significant portion of your income to be within biking distance.


> Is it affordable to live close to work, in other countries?

Not really. Before COVID, I generally took a 15 minute run to the train station, then took the train for about hour, then took another 20 minute run to get to work at the local tech centre. If I had a fold-up bike, it would be a lot quicker, because there are bicycle paths. (In theory, I could've worked remotely, but it was easier to get stuff done with access to a whiteboard and the person in charge of systems architecture. I could also take a regular bike on the train, but if everyone did it that would be a mess, so I don't.)

I do stand by my “doing it wrong” remark – though I'll have to apply it to whoever designed your cities. That situation is awful (though good on you for using an electric car).


What kind of distance did you cover with your hour and a half commute? Also, what would your commute time have been if you had driven?


What electric car in the US costs 8k? I assume that is used, but even then that sounds cheap.


You can find used Nissan Leaf and used Fiat 500e for pretty cheap. I bought mine midway through this used car price increase (about one year ago). A year before, they were selling for $5k. People don't seem to want the low mileage cars, even though most people would be fine with a low mileage car, as a secondary vehicle.


Maybe not in today's market, but you could probably get a used Leaf for around that a couple of years ago.


Are you in the US? Because even if I wanted to walk/bus to the grocery store near me it would take almost 4x longer one-way (46 mins vs 12) and I’d also be subject to the maybe-once-per-hour schedule of the bus.


I'm not in the US, but I didn't know the US was quite that bad. Can't you cycle?


99% of the US by land area is that bad; somewhat less so by population since NYC is navigable without a car and that's 8M people alone. There are approximately zero cities outside of New York where public transit is viable competition to cars.

Weather permitting, cycling is doable in some places. Most places however have narrow (or no!) bike lanes with automotive surface traffic moving at least 48kph and drivers having zero clue how to drive around bicycles. In urban areas there are usually cars parked directly next to the bike lane, with drivers opening doors into the bike lane. Many commercial delivery vehicles park in bike lanes as well; in the places where that is forbidden (fewer than you would think) the laws against it are typically unenforced.

[edit]

To give you an idea, I drive my 13y.o. daughter to school. It takes about 10 minutes. This is ridiculous. However the other options are:

- Walk (no place to leave bike near bus stop) a bit over 2km to nearest bus stop, take 45 minute bus ride.

- Bicycle along a road with 72kph speed limit; bike lane is not separated and is as narrow as 20cm(!!) in places with cars that are alternating between going above the speed-limit and stopped (with cars turning across traffic in gaps while stopped; I have personally witnessed 2 car vs car collisions where the two cars couldn't see each other due to stopped lane of traffic between them. A bicyclist would have been killed. Most bicyclists (including me) avoid this road, though enough travel on it for one to get hit by a car roughly annually (only 1 fatality in the past 3 years that I can remember though).

- Bicycle an extra 3km (6 vs 9), crossing the above death-trap road, but not cycling along it. This still travels along a road with a 72kph speed limit, but traffic is much lighter and shoulders are much wider. There is one intersection that is a bit nuts, but can be traversed by hopping off the bicycle and using the cross-walks.


> There are approximately zero cities outside of New York where public transit is viable competition to cars.

Significant swaths of Boston.

But, except for that, completely agree.

:)

A lot of people outside the US don't realize how new all our city layouts are. The majority of American cities were built out after cars came onto the scene. Did the cities exist before cars? Sure, but except for a few east coast cities, only with population numbers that could best be described as laughable.


Does the busses in your area have bike racks? The public transit in my city is pretty bike friendly. The busses all have bike racks in the front and the trains have bike hooks in the flat entrance train cars.


My city's actually been cutting busses to replace them with their own uber-like service. It's cheap, at only $0.75/person/ride (and no tips, drivers are salaried!), but the hours are the same as busses (so about 7a-7p) and wait times are generally > 20min.

>There are approximately zero cities outside of New York where public transit is viable competition to cars.

It's viable in San Francisco proper as well.


Cycling is normally very dangerous in North America (outside of certain urban cores and small towns), due to the road design and zoning laws. This channel is helpful in understanding the problem: https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac


Most driving outside of hyper-local destinations (this includes going to my _preferred_ grocery store, versus Walmart) requires driving on the Interstate highway which is probably one of the most dangerous kinds of roads to cycle on with an average speed limit of 70mph (~112 km/h), inconsistent shoulders for cycling, and generally more aggressive drivers.


Oh yea - I actually got yelled by a truck in Houston for biking on a side street on a Saturday morning


Most places in the US don't have cycling infrastructure. i.e. bike lanes or shoulders.


Haha I drive my car to my San Francisco office for a quick 10 min ride. It isn’t that I can’t bike there (I have a carbon fiber aero bike with zipps and dura-ace throughout). I often take my motorcycle there because it cuts the commute to 6 min.

It’s just that I’m eager to not spend time not on the prime activity.


Interested in the longevity and how it compares to existing


How long does it take to charge this thing?


Charge current can be scaled with battery capacity, so it should be the same as any battery of the same chemistry if you have a powerful enough charger.


Probably twice as long as the battery it replaced (assuming twice the range). You can still stop and recharge every 300 miles if you want to. Ultimately you're gonna spend the same amount of time charging to get the same distance. This just means you could go out 300 miles and back without stopping for a charge at all. The advantage of this though is that you can at least start with 600 miles of range from your home. You'd probably only ever have to charge it overnight, because that's a solid 12 hours of driving. So long as your hotel has a charger you can use, you're basically never stopping to fuel up on a road trip as a single driver.


Does it really matter if it has a range of 1200 kilometers ? I would have to charge this car once every 3-4 years or so.


If you drive 300Km per year, you probably shouldn't own a car.


I would have to charge it every 3 weeks.


sounds like you dont need a car


It’a convenient to have when I need it. I have a tiny car that cost me very little in taxes and insurance. Slightly more than a car sharing subscription would cost but available whenever I want without having to reserve it in advance.


~700 miles is the magic point at which charging times can be significantly extended to simply be overnight.


Problem’s without fast charging many EVs are already there, even in europe.

A standard plug is 3.6kW, overnight that’s under 30kWh (probably significantly so as charging slows down a lot above 80%). To charge a model s 100 overnight you need a 22kW charger (3-phase 400V 32A). In europe that’s the biggest you can get in a residential setting I think.

For double that you’d need a fast DC charger, I don’t think that’a available for residential use.


I'm a bit confused by your need of 22kW to get "overnight" charge of 100kW. Wouldn't you have that 100kW in <5 hours with a 22kW charger? I would imagine most people think of "overnight" as >5 hours, probably closer to 8. So a 22kW charger is way better than overnight in those markets where that's reasonably available.

You'd get pretty close to "overnight" charging in the US as well. Its often not too hard to add a 48A 240V EVSE into a garage here, 8 hours would get you ~92kWh of charging power. I'm not entirely sure what charging efficiencies look like on a Model S, and 92kWh is only 92% of of the battery, but chances are you weren't pulling into your garage at 0% charge anyways.


> I'm a bit confused by your need of 22kW to get "overnight" charge of 100kW. Wouldn't you have that 100kW in <5 hours with a 22kW charger?

Yes. Because 5 < 8 it works for an overnight charge. The chargers I’ve seen below that are 11kW, which is not sufficient, hence “you need a 22”, because the model below that does not suffice. Though it is of course possible intermediate models do exist and I’m unaware of them. Tho I guess it would make sense for american residential power supply to top out somewhere inbetween.

And do remember, charge speed is not constant and slows down drastically as levels close in on full.

> You'd get pretty close to "overnight" charging in the US as well.

The context of the discussion is the ability to charge a 200kW battery overnight yes? My point is overnighting 100kW is already a pretty heavy requirement.

Although I’m not sure that’s much if an issue, doing >700mi multiple days back to back in a car and going home every time seems quite the rare use-case, usually it’s more of a road trip situation so you could find fast DC stations on the way and your overnight would not be critical.


Ah, I didn't realize there was essentially a jump all the way from 11 to 22 without much in-between, I kind of assumed there would be somewhat a range that would be common. I'm not too familiar with what EVSE chargers are common in Europe.


It’s a pretty logical consequence of delivery, basically in residential settings these days you’ve got:

- 230V 16A (3.6), that’s your bog-standard plug

- 230V 32A (7.2), that’s your high-amp, usually for things like AC, electric cooktops and ovens, driers, …

- 3-phase 400V 16A (11kW), same as above but for the rarer cases where 7.2 is not enough (e.g. high-end electric ranges commonly exceed 7.2 if they have high-power burners or lots of them), as well as higher-end tinkering / DIY tools, it used to be very common but really drew down over time as single-phase power & reliability increased and simplified setup, I have not looked but I expect EVs are leading (or will lead) to a renaissance of residential 3-phase.

- 3-phase 400V 32A (22kW), same as above with larger wires, AFAIK it’s basically the biggest supply you can get in a home or appartment.


Its interesting to me as in the residential US you'll see 15A/20A for common outlets/lights, then 30A/40A common for large appliances, and finally 50A circuits being somewhat rare but not entirely uncommon. There's quite a range of common amperages instead of just two different common amperages. I had just kind of assumed there would be variability of amperages in Europe as well.

Thanks for sharing!


Twice the capacity, twice the charge time (more or less).


How much does it take to cool this thing is my question




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: