MME Charging Curve Data Collection

[Marcel]

Nothing is carved in stone.

correct

Sponsored

 

[Shayne]

You are complaining about a design and engineering process that has been in place for decades. Not restricted to electric vehicles but every successful vehicle since the late 80's.

If you get a chance to sit in and participate in the vast amount of decisions and testing made by the engineers it would blow your mind.

I have first hand knowledge of some of the goals and concerns when Ford and Magna were setting the design specs for the FFE and it was amazing to see those teams at work.

Similar story for the folks who designed the Super Duty platform. Those early models were very over engineered per the spec because Ford was blazing new ground. Without question, the 1999-2003 PowerStroke SD trucks were the most durable and conservative. From that point up to today, EVERY single design change made to that vehicle was made for a reason.....usually related to the bottom line. Sometimes that is a simple cost saving decision, sometimes it is for increased efficiency, sometimes it is regulated and sometimes it is for product improvement to keep or grow market share. Either way, it is a choice made with much thought and consideration.

I am very sure the battery pack was designed to satisfy hundreds of engineering criteria and wasn't sized just to keep some of it away from the user. It all gets used for some purpose that Ford has deemed necessary at this time.

No I am not complaining about the engineering or the design process and I have noted early tech is normally robust a number of times on this forum. As an M.Eng with 30+ years as a design engineer I have a understanding of the process. I am praising the engineering and complaining about management; the ones that have dulled the launch in favor and fear of battery warranty. There is no engineering involved in the buffer or the 80% charging brick wall. Ask the engineers what is really going on lately. It was designed by engineers but my guess is it has been hampered by management (bean counters) whos only worry is about warranty items. That may not be speculation as that has been in the news.

Not slamming the design, pack size or the engineers here. Just the ones that toke the Mustang DNA away from those engineers and out of their design. That happens and has nothing to do with engineers or the design team. It was sized right and would have provided 270 miles EPA at 94 KWh. It does not at 88 KWh. Tesla scalars had to be used which was the first step in killing what the engineers produced and what should have been an incredible launch. Next came the 80% DCFC brick wall. We will see. I think now the ones that are making the decisions are not engineers or part of the design team and have no real knowledge of the design. Most likely a back ground in financing.

If you don't say anything nothing will ever change. Looking for adoption and it is not a complaint but a hope. A 250 mi EPA vehicle isn't really anything new; especially when you can only charge it to 80% when on the road. It may not be massively sold in northern states or cold countries. At least there should not be many battery warranty items. Kind of like running a v8 on 4 cylinders or never over 2000 rpm.

 

[dbsb3233]

No I am not complaining about the engineering or the design process and I have noted early tech is normally robust a number of times on this forum. As an M.Eng with 30+ years as a design engineer I have a understanding of the process. I am praising the engineering and complaining about management; the ones that have dulled the launch in favor and fear of battery warranty. There is no engineering involved in the buffer or the 80% charging brick wall. Ask the engineers what is really going on lately. It was designed by engineers but my guess is it has been hampered by management (bean counters) whos only worry is about warranty items. That may not be speculation as that has been in the news.

Not slamming the design, pack size or the engineers here. Just the ones that toke the Mustang DNA away from those engineers and out of their design. That happens and has nothing to do with engineers or the design team. It was sized right and would have provided 270 miles EPA at 94 KWh. It does not at 88 KWh. Tesla scalars had to be used which was the first step in killing what the engineers produced and what should have been an incredible launch. Next came the 80% DCFC brick wall. We will see. I think now the ones that are making the decisions are not engineers or part of the design team and have no real knowledge of the design. Most likely a back ground in financing.

If you don't say anything nothing will ever change. Looking for adoption and it is not a complaint but a hope. A 250 mi EPA vehicle isn't really anything new; especially when you can only charge it to 80% when on the road. It may not be massively sold in northern states or cold countries. At least there should not be many battery warranty items. Kind of like running a v8 on 4 cylinders or never over 2000 rpm.

That's a lot of speculation and supposition, that may or may not be correct about the reasons why the preproduction cars charge much slower at 80% SOC, and your theories about EPA range.

Time will tell, I suppose, whether any of those theories is true.

 

[dbsb3233]

I thought 80% was about the point where the e-Tron started to fall off too. The really impressive part is how high it stays all the way up to ~80%. Still not sure how they do that (although I suspect it added significant $$).

 

[Shayne]

That's a lot of speculation and supposition, that may or may not be correct about the reasons why the preproduction cars charge much slower at 80% SOC, and your theories about EPA range.

Time will tell, I suppose, whether any of those theories is true.

No speculation on EPA 2 cycle range the numbers are there for all to see. The recently released SR confirms the scalars that are being used and that the numbers for ER are not old numbers as some here speculated. I have a knack when it comes to what happens over the course on a new design. Might be due to the the thousands of projects I have been a part of a design team with. Not always right only 8 to 9 times out of 10 in undergrad on average. Hope after 30 years that has got better. Time will tell if management will shift. Can't hurt trying.

 

[dbsb3233]

No speculation on EPA 2 cycle range the numbers are there for all to see. The recently released SR confirms the scalars that are being used and that the numbers for ER are not old numbers as some here speculated. I have a knack when it comes to what happens over the course on a new design. Might be due to the the thousands of projects I have been a part of a design team with. Not always right only 8 to 9 times out of 10 in undergrad on average. Hope after 30 years that has got better. Time will tell if management will shift. Can't hurt trying.

Well FWIW, I've said many times I feel EPA "range" on BEVs is pretty worthless anyway. What matters will be those miles/kWh readings people actually get on the highway.

Time will tell.

 

[silverelan]

I don't see how it would penalize the e-tron when its 10-80 power is something like 144kW. The catch with that car is that 70% range is only 120-140 miles or so.

 

[SnBGC]

No I am not complaining about the engineering or the design process and I have noted early tech is normally robust a number of times on this forum. As an M.Eng with 30+ years as a design engineer I have a understanding of the process. I am praising the engineering and complaining about management; the ones that have dulled the launch in favor and fear of battery warranty. There is no engineering involved in the buffer or the 80% charging brick wall. Ask the engineers what is really going on lately. It was designed by engineers but my guess is it has been hampered by management (bean counters) whos only worry is about warranty items. That may not be speculation as that has been in the news.

Not slamming the design, pack size or the engineers here. Just the ones that toke the Mustang DNA away from those engineers and out of their design. That happens and has nothing to do with engineers or the design team. It was sized right and would have provided 270 miles EPA at 94 KWh. It does not at 88 KWh. Tesla scalars had to be used which was the first step in killing what the engineers produced and what should have been an incredible launch. Next came the 80% DCFC brick wall. We will see. I think now the ones that are making the decisions are not engineers or part of the design team and have no real knowledge of the design. Most likely a back ground in financing.

If you don't say anything nothing will ever change. Looking for adoption and it is not a complaint but a hope. A 250 mi EPA vehicle isn't really anything new; especially when you can only charge it to 80% when on the road. It may not be massively sold in northern states or cold countries. At least there should not be many battery warranty items. Kind of like running a v8 on 4 cylinders or never over 2000 rpm.

There you go. There definitely are many stakeholders involved. Each with their own needs and concerns. The engineers usually run free during gestation but when it comes birthing time, everybody wants to be a parent. With a company the size of Ford and their history of building vehicles.....there is a loooong line of parents, grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, illegitimate children etc.

In regards to DCFC.....it's very easy to dump energy into a battery until it begins to reach capacity. As that point approaches, it becomes harder.....both for the battery and the charger. Think about that for a second. Who has a proprietary DCFC charging system that only functions with one vehicle manufacturer? Everyone else shares a group of DCFC facilities. Those facilities have their requirements that may or may not work as consistently as each manufacturer would like. This issue is compounded by the simple fact that DCFC isn't really used that often other than the one EV manufacturer based in California.

If I am designing a vehicle that is able to DCFC, and I want to minimize my exposure to warranty claims....I would be VERY careful with the charge rates once the battery reaches 80% capacity. This is the same reason why we have rev limiters and speed limiters on ICE vehicles. If you let people do stupid things then they will do stupid things. Look at all the people that purchase a fresh air intake for their brand new vehicle thinking they can improve something that the manufacturer didn't already try. Then they complain when they drive through a water puddle or go through the car wash and hydrolock their engine. Or the folks that never check the air in their tires and then want to sue the manufacturer when the tires blow out and cause an accident. It goes on and on....unfortunately.

 

[dbsb3233]

It's better after 80% too, but where it really shine is that pre-80%.

 

[Shayne]

Just love the plate UBUYG4S ?.

 

[Marcel]

Video testing German charging infrastructure

 

[Dan G]

I don't believe they do have plug and charge yet. I believe this is Kyle just starting the charge from the app.

If you pull into a charging stall at EA, you can start the charge session from your phone. Then you can get out and plug in. I believe this is what he did in this video. Could be wrong, though.

Sponsored