hybrid2bev
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2019
- Threads
- 75
- Messages
- 4,071
- Reaction score
- 11,093
- Location
- USA
- Vehicles
- 2021 Job 1 Premium4X - EAP Member
Had this sent to me today. Updated to 61 miles in 10 minutes.
Sponsored
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.Had this sent to me today. Updated to 61 miles in 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".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.
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.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).
You're right, I missed that. The press release number for the AWD ER is 52 miles added in 10 minutes, not 61.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.
No biggie. I think we all need to get out of the house for a whileYou're right, I missed that. The press release number for the AWD ER is 52 miles added in 10 minutes, not 61.
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.No biggie. I think we all need to get out of the house for a while
I assumed some of the same -- that some of it gets lost in translation when converting to miles.The number is likely to be statistically close, but clearly an estimate due to all the fuzzy conversions.
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 wortheither 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).
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.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.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