LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
385
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
So 98kWh battery. 270 miles for AWD.

2.75 miles per kWh.

61 miles is 22kWh in 10 minutes.

Charging at 122 kWh rate?
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
So that's interesting. This explicitly says 61 mi for every 10 minutes and doesn't caveat the charge rate to just the first 10 minutes.
That is interesting. Even though the footnote still acknowledges a slowing charging rate as the battery fills. Which means it's yet more contradictory wording since it can't charge the same 61 miles "every 10 minutes".

At best, it really means "an average of" 61 miles every 10 minutes (even though they fail to say that). If that's true, either the mileage (thus range) also went up 30%, or the 10-80% charging time went down by 30%. Which would both be really big deals yet weren't even mentioned there.

If either of those are true, it still seems like this would be burying the lead. Still seems unlikely to me, although there is one scenario where it might make a little sense -- if they're close to getting the EPA mileage finalized and are just waiting for the final sign-off before releasing that number. But even that seems highly unlikely, if for no other reason than a 30% boost in range seems way to good to be true. 5%, yes. 10%, maybe. But anything close to 30%... seems like a pipe dream.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
So 98kWh battery. 270 miles for AWD.

2.75 miles per kWh.

61 miles is 22kWh in 10 minutes.

Charging at 122 kWh rate?
Two errors in that last line. It would be 132 rather than 122 (22 * 6); and it's kW, not kWh.

More likely though the usable battery (minus reserve) is around 90 kWh. That would be 3.00 miles per kWh on the AWD ER. 61 miles would be 20.3 kWh in 10 minutes, and a charging power average rate of 122 kW (ironically, back to match your number).
 
  • Like
Reactions: UW2

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
385
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
More likely though the usable battery (minus reserve) is around 90 kWh.
Battery is rated at 98kWh so best stick with that. It does make it more conservative and nothing wrong with that so the 122 kWh rate is pretty good but that's just 10 minutes into an hour with no ramping down which is likely though Audi manages to charge at a high rate to 80% with a 95kWh battery.

In real world, the Model 3 charged at 86kWh rate over a 10-90% charge. If Mach-E can match that it will be pretty good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UW2

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
771
Reaction score
718
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Two errors in that last line. It would be 132 rather than 122 (22 * 6); and it's kW, not kWh.

More likely though the usable battery (minus reserve) is around 90 kWh. That would be 3.00 miles per kWh on the AWD ER. 61 miles would be 20.3 kWh in 10 minutes, and a charging power average rate of 122 kW (ironically, back to match your number).
more than 2: 61 miles in 10 minutes is for RWD, not AWD. So about 3 mi/kwh (300/98.9), roughly 20.3kwh in 10 minutes - yielding approximately the original 122kw charging average.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
more than 2: 61 miles in 10 minutes is for RWD, not AWD. So about 3 mi/kwh (300/98.9), roughly 20.3kwh in 10 minutes - yielding approximately the original 122kw charging average.
You're right, I missed that. The press release number for the AWD ER is 52 miles added in 10 minutes, not 61.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
771
Reaction score
718
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
You're right, I missed that. The press release number for the AWD ER is 52 miles added in 10 minutes, not 61.
No biggie. I think we all need to get out of the house for a while :p
 

TheSteelRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
177
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Premium RWD
Country flag
No biggie. I think we all need to get out of the house for a while :p
I'm late to the party, but thought I'd mention I'm reading the article slightly different than everyone else it seems. I have worked with Li-Ion battery engineers for data center hardware, and I've worked with Marketing (we call them Offering Management or OM for short) for years.

Battery engineers appear to only ever talk in Ah (Amp-hours) with an assumed constant voltage, or Wh (watt-hours) with an assumed constant or max current draw. All batteries, regardless of technology, have charge and discharge curves as a function of temperature and time. For example, it is easy to Google for Duracell AA battery curves.

I think the engineering team legitimately made an improvement, or at least made real world measurements that bested the previous theoretical calculations. They surely would have presented the new data as a curve, because as others have noted in this thread, a curve is the only data that makes sense for batteries.

OM looked at the curves and thought, "maths is hard". They wanted a single number, like %improvement because Joe Average consumes single number more easily than a plot of a curve.

The next issue is that Joe Average is an ICE buyer and doesn't understand charge times. But, hey look at that, they understand RANGE.

So, OM converted the complicated curve to a single number improvement, then went back and stated the improvement in terms of range. That is why, for example, the numbers are different between the SR and ER or RWD vs. AWD.

The number is likely to be statistically close, but clearly an estimate due to all the fuzzy conversions.

I think they intend for us to read, "Mo' Betta charging" as someone eluded to earlier in this thread.
 
Last edited:

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
The number is likely to be statistically close, but clearly an estimate due to all the fuzzy conversions.
I assumed some of the same -- that some of it gets lost in translation when converting to miles.

But there's still gross inconsistencies surrounding the "improvement". If it really is faster charging than originally estimated, then either the 10-80% in 45 minute number is now incorrect (even though they explicitly reiterated it in the press release), or the vehicle mileage has improved which means range is longer (which they surely would have touted).

Either way, it's still not adding up.
 

TheSteelRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
177
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Premium RWD
Country flag
either the 10-80% in 45 minute number is now incorrect (even though they explicitly reiterated it in the press release), or the vehicle mileage has improved which means range is longer (which they surely would have touted).
Or both! I have no data to back my statement up, but I would personally suspect it is a little of both, but likely the charge times improvement is greater than the range improvement. I'm not entirely convinced that a range improvement would be yet-touted, especially if it was small. Range numbers involve the EPA, charge time numbers do not. Also, range numbers are all suspiciously very round or predictable numbers likely again owing to the fact that consumers will resonate with a number like "300" better than "296". Again, pure total unsubstantiated, opinionated claims I'm making, but there you go for the $0.02 it's worth :)
 

zhackwyatt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
333
Location
Arizona
Vehicles
'13 C-Max
Country flag
Or both! I have no data to back my statement up, but I would personally suspect it is a little of both, but likely the charge times improvement is greater than the range improvement. I'm not entirely convinced that a range improvement would be yet-touted, especially if it was small. Range numbers involve the EPA, charge time numbers do not. Also, range numbers are all suspiciously very round or predictable numbers likely again owing to the fact that consumers will resonate with a number like "300" better than "296". Again, pure total unsubstantiated, opinionated claims I'm making, but there you go for the $0.02 it's worth :)
Even if there was a range improvement, I could see them not announcing it until EPA certified numbers are produced. They are probably nervous about another <Insert electric car that had a drastically lower EPA rating than the manufacturer expected but my memory sucks and I can't remember> incident.

Tesla seems to hardly ever meet their EPA ratings and during a Ford interview a Ford employee mentioned: "When we say 300, we mean 300".
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Or both! I have no data to back my statement up, but I would personally suspect it is a little of both, but likely the charge times improvement is greater than the range improvement. I'm not entirely convinced that a range improvement would be yet-touted, especially if it was small. Range numbers involve the EPA, charge time numbers do not. Also, range numbers are all suspiciously very round or predictable numbers likely again owing to the fact that consumers will resonate with a number like "300" better than "296". Again, pure total unsubstantiated, opinionated claims I'm making, but there you go for the $0.02 it's worth :)
I've said the same about the rounding of the range numbers. With all of them ending in '0', they obviously rounded them off. But that only accounts for up to a 2% error. And if the 45 minutes was similarly rounded up to 45 from 43, that's 4%. Rounding errors could maybe explain a 5-6% "improvement" in the charging time. Could even understand 10%. But that contradictory press release said 30% improvement. That's way more than rounding errors.

I could maybe understand that if range went up, they'd just wait to announce it as part of the official EPA numbers (which we've been waiting seemingly forever for) rather than moving the estimates up now and risk having to back down a little then. But I'd be very surprised if they go up more than maybe 10%. That's still a long way from 30%.

Maybe they just screwed up reiterating that "45 minutes" number, but that seems unlikely to me too. That's so integral to any "charging time" announcement. And it was prominently stated in the 3rd paragraph.

I'm still leaning toward believing it's only slight improvement overall (rouding error territory) with a VERY early and severe charging curve taper.
 

silverelan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
709
Reaction score
649
Location
Seattle
Vehicles
2015 Subaru Outback
Country flag
For 2021, 45 mins to go from 10% to 80% on a 150 kW charger is pretty disappointing because at best it's mediocre.

Tesla Raven - 48 mins on V3
I-PACE - 40-45 mins
XC40 Recharge - 40 mins
Polestar 2 - 40 mins
Audi e-tron - 30 mins
Audi Q4 e-tron - 30 mins
Model Y - 27 mins on V3

I haven't taken the time yet to figure out what that 70% charge equates to in miles for each vehicle.
 
Top