Exciting Battery Day topics coming to light

[Crissa]

Hey AJ,
I appreciate your response. I've been looking at abetterrouteplanner,

Your route is one if the least supported into the least populous portion of the SW, over multiple mountain ranges. Hence the long stops. There are few paths worse to compare! It is not representative of the vast majority of roadtrips.

Anyhow, you probably want to look at https://teslike.com/

Very few trucks (let alone cars) ever do road trips like the one you've shown. Yes, you would want more range to do that trip - but most households have more than one vehicle. You wouldn't want to do that trip in a compact car! (tho I have).

-Crissa

Advertisement

 

[ajdelange]

I've been looking at abetterrouteplanner, and doing virtual trips,

That is absolutely the right thing to do.

.. looks very inconvenient to me. As you mentioned you have/and are entitled to your opinion, that's fine.

If it does it does. Perhaps a BEV is not the right vehicle for you -at least not for your road trips. Lots of owners keep an old ICE car for road trips. Others rent one (I worked for a guy who always did that as a matter of course even in the days before BEVs).

Did I do something wrong. Please tell me it's not gonna be this much stopping and waiting to recharge on trips.

Fact of the matter is that you are going to drive 788 miles and at 425 Wh/mi 788*.425 = 334.9 kW hr. With tapering and the fact that most chargers out there are still 125 kW the average charge rate people seem to experience is 80 - 100 kW. The match is easy from there. At 100 kW you will have to spend 3.349 hours (3:21) charging.

I totally agree with you, most of my time/around home. I won't be supercharging and spending 10-15 sec. plugging and unplugging to my home. Even though the price of charging looks good, I really don't want to spend 3h. 14mins. charging to go 788 miles.

You make take some comfort in the fact that the 250 kW (V3) chargers are coming on line which would, presumably, cut your charging time in half. Beyond that some of us think that the TriMotor may have two charging ports which would cut it in half again (with a pair of 250 kW terminals available) but at least initially I think you will be charging over 3 hrs.

Oh, and when I get to the destination I'm on 10% also. There's another 45 mins. unless I get some kind of destination charge.

You definitely want to arrange things so that you have Level 2 charging available at the destination.

 

[Sirfun]

Your route is one if the least supported into the least populous portion of the SW, over multiple mountain ranges. Hence the long stops. There are few paths worse to compare! It is not representative of the vast majority of roadtrips.

Anyhow, you probably want to look at https://teslike.com/

Very few trucks (let alone cars) ever do road trips like the one you've shown. Yes, you would want more range to do that trip - but most households have more than one vehicle. You wouldn't want to do that trip in a compact car! (tho I have).

-Crissa

I started this conversation about how reducing time at stops would be more agreeable to myself and the general public. After reading your comment I looked at reversing the direction starting high in the mountains in Moab and driving down to sea level in Oxnard. It only improved time recharging by 9 minutes, you would still have 3h 5mins. with one less stop plus you arrive with 10%, charge meaning, if it was somewhere else I'd still need about 45 mins of charging to get back to 85%. You stated more range would help. Well, not really that much. I did the same trip with the Tri motor with approx. 200 more miles range than the Dual. Well, with only 2 stops the recharge time is 2h 26mins. BUT, you arrive with 10% left in the battery so to charge back up to 85% with that larger battery takes another 1h 15mins. so there we are again at 3h 41mins in the Tri, to 3h 50 mins in the Dual. Not much benefit to more range. Oh one other thing. With my family we rarely make it over 3 hours between pee breaks. So in actuality the longer range doesn't have any benefit. I realize it's just my family but hey.
Now, one more thing. I would think since it tells how much range you used to go a set amount of miles with abetterroutefinder you could get an idea of how many miles 100% of a charge should get you. Well, that was NOT GOOD! Going down in elevation the best mileage for any section was the last one from Yermo, California @ 1940alt. to Oxnard at sea level. 181 miles uses approx. 76% of what would be 238 miles for 100%. The rest of the downhill trip the Dual motor only averaged maybe 215 miles range. I don't have any experience with EV's but on https://teslike.com/ this seems to hold true. On my trip I set the speed at 112% percent which is what I think is pretty normal speeds. Oh well, I still want shorter stops!

 

[Sirfun]

That is absolutely the right thing to do.

If it does it does. Perhaps a BEV is not the right vehicle for you -at least not for your road trips. Lots of owners keep an old ICE car for road trips. Others rent one (I worked for a guy who always did that as a matter of course even in the days before BEVs).




Fact of the matter is that you are going to drive 788 miles and at 425 Wh/mi 788*.425 = 334.9 kW hr. With tapering and the fact that most chargers out there are still 125 kW the average charge rate people seem to experience is 80 - 100 kW. The match is easy from there. At 100 kW you will have to spend 3.349 hours (3:21) charging.


You make take some comfort in the fact that the 250 kW (V3) chargers are coming on line which would, presumably, cut your charging time in half. Beyond that some of us think that the TriMotor may have two charging ports which would cut it in half again (with a pair of 250 kW terminals available) but at least initially I think you will be charging over 3 hrs.


You definitely want to arrange things so that you have Level 2 charging available at the destination.

Thanks AJ,
That would be really beneficial to have 2 ports and cut charging time in half. I think Elon being the smart guy he is will see, somehow they need to make it less painful to take a Cybertruck on a road trip. I would be bummed if I have to keep my Ford E250 for road trips. The Cybertruck would be a WAY BETTER vehicle in every way, except taking so much longer at stops, adds so much more time to the trip.

 

[TyPope]

Hey, have you guys seen this?

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/

 

[ajdelange]

more range would help. Well, not really that much.

More range doesn't help. In this case it hurts as more range means a bigger battery and a bigger battery weighs more meaning higher consumption. It is consumption that determines how much time you will spend charging. Same as in an ICE vehicle. The size of the gas tank does not determine how much fuel you use on a trip. The mpg number does. A truck with bigger fuel tank is hauling more weight and thus turns in poorer mpg.

I did the same trip with the Tri motor with approx. 200 more miles range than the Dual.

Do try different approaches in ABRP including the TriMotor. Also try different base Wh/mi. I'm hoping that these trucks won't really pull as much as ABRP's settings. Given that an X takes about 260 Wh/mi I'm hoping a TriMotor may take only 360. That may be naive but at least you can see the effects.

Going down in elevation..

.. is good. Each 1000 m elevation loss will save you something like 30 kWh which, at a 100 kW charging rate, saves 18 minutes of charging.

That would be really beneficial to have 2 ports and cut charging time in half.

I don't think that is even in the rumor mill at this point but the CT is going to use a lot of juice and that means long charging times - exactly as you are seeing. The TriMotor has twice the battery of the smaller cars (and CTs). It just seems to make sense to separate the two batteries for charging purposes and use the standard charging circuits for each. What really makes me hopeful that they will do this is that they do it in the Semi. Of course you'll need to stalls to avail yourself of it and I expect you would make yourself very unpopular if you took two while people were waiting to charge etc.

The Cybertruck would a WAY BETTER vehicle in every way, except taking so much longer at stops, adds so much more time to the trip.

Many of us don't find the charging time burdensome but we are not taking trips like yours. Others do but are willing to overlook the inconvenience because we only experience it a few times a year. Others can't tolerate it and don't buy BEV or don't use them for long trips. Others change the way they travel e.g. by breaking the trip into shorter segments, modifying it to include sightseeing along the way etc. The more leisurely you can afford or want to be the less of a burden it becomes.

Finally I think that many who have poured over ABRP prior to getting the car (I was certainly one) don't find the actual experience to be as bad as they thought it might be. I can't promise that this will be the case for you, of course.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sirfun]

More range doesn't help. In this case it hurts as more range means a bigger battery and a bigger battery weighs more meaning higher consumption. It is consumption that determines how much time you will spend charging. Same as in an ICE vehicle. The size of the gas tank does not determine how much fuel you use on a trip. The mpg number does. A truck with bigger fuel tank is hauling more weight and thus turns in poorer mpg.

Do try different approaches in ABRP including the TriMotor. Also try different base Wh/mi. I'm hoping that these trucks won't really pull as much as ABRP's settings. Given that an X takes about 260 Wh/mi I'm hoping a TriMotor may take only 360. That may be naive but at least you can see the effects.

.. is good. Each 1000 m elevation loss will save you something like 30 kWh which, at a 100 kW charging rate, saves 18 minutes of charging.

I don't think that is even in the rumor mill at this point but the CT is going to use a lot of juice and that means long charging times - exactly as you are seeing. The TriMotor has twice the battery of the smaller cars (and CTs). It just seems to make sense to separate the two batteries for charging purposes and use the standard charging circuits for each. What really makes me hopeful that they will do this is that they do it in the Semi. Of course you'll need to stalls to avail yourself of it and I expect you would make yourself very unpopular if you took two while people were waiting to charge etc.

Many of us don't find the charging time burdensome but we are not taking trips like yours. Others do but are willing to overlook the inconvenience because we only experience it a few times a year. Others can't tolerate it and don't buy BEV or don't use them for long trips. Others change the way they travel e.g. by breaking the trip into shorter segments, modifying it to include sightseeing along the way etc. The more leisurely you can afford or want to be the less of a burden it becomes.

Finally I think that many who have poured over ABRP prior to getting the car (I was certainly one) don't find the actual experience to be as bad as they thought it might be. I can't promise that this will be the case for you, of course.

[/QUOTE]
Deep sigh,
All very good points! I was hoping you'd say ABRP generally error's on the conservative side. I really hope so. Also though looking at https://teslike.com/ when you drive 80 it really does kill the range. Here in the wild west (take for example driving to Vegas), if you're only going 80 in the desert, you're in the way of most drivers. The fastest posted speed in the U.S. 85mph is on that toll road that cuts through the Tesla property in Austin.

 

[lancethibault]

A Better Route Planner +1, thumbs up. I didn't know this existed. Thank you for pointing out how the charging actually works. My 1300+ mile trip that we did in 22 hrs would not have taken 3 days but rather 25 - 27 hrs. I can live with that.

And for my hunt trip, at the cost of about an hr charging I can arrive at my base camp with about 85% SoC. I'll have to depart the base camp with about 22% SoC, but that should give me at least 150 miles of driving during the hunt which would be about 3 days. There is a Supercharger closer that I could go to if needed, but it's not on the way to the camp or back from the camp headed home. It's basically 30 miles past the base camp headed in a direction I don't normally go. But it's there if I need it to ensure I can get in a full week of hunting. I can live with this too.

I'm less of a skeptic tonight. I'm sorry to anyone who thought they might be able to get my early tri-motor reservation from me.

 

[TruckElectric]

As The Driven reported on Tuesday, theories have been circulating that Tesla is working with silicon nanowire company Amprius Technologies, which is headquartered on the same street as Tesla in Fremont. Musk responded to Cleantechnica on Thursday that there was really nothing in the wild rumour.

“Was surprised to hear they’re across the road. Adding silicon to carbon anode makes sense. We already do,” said Musk, who also pointed out that the use of silicon in batteries has challenges that reduces battery life.

“Question is just what ratio of silicon to carbon & what shape? Silicon expands like crazy during discharge & comes apart, so cycle life is usually bad,” he said.

But actually nothing. Was surprised to hear they’re across the road. Adding silicon to carbon anode makes sense. We already do. Question is just what ratio of silicon to carbon & what shape? Silicon expands like crazy during discharge & comes apart, so cycle life is usually bad.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 27, 2020

Source: The Driven

 

[ajdelange]

332 485

I was hoping you'd say ABRP generally error's on the conservative side. I really hope so.

ABRP generally errs on the conservative side. Better? Unfortunately it's not, in my experience, by much and may be reflective of the fact that where I drive one seldom experiences sustained speeds of 65 mph which is the speed for which you specify baseline consumption which will be appreciably higher than EPA condumption. For example, ABRP says that the consumption for my long range X id 332 wh/mi. Overall the car has been using 280 or so but in a recent trip on the freeway it used 298. Scaling its number for the CT (485 Wh/mi) by the same ratio says I would have used 435 Wh/mi in a CT. That's a saving of 50 Wh/mi which translates to about 25 minutes saved charging at 100 kW on a 788 mile trip.

Also though looking at https://teslike.com/ when you drive 80 it really does kill the range.

Yes. My driving history projects that on a trip at 80 mph my consumption would be 370 Wh/mi. In my car that would translate to 40 minutes extra charging at 100 kW. Keep in mind that ABRP takes speed into consideration. You can dial in how fast you plan to go as a percentage of the speed limit.

 

[ajdelange]

When I said that extra range hurts because of the extra battery weight I meant to add that the size of the gas tank doesn't effect the amount of gas you burn (other than through higher mpg or Wh/mi) but that it does effect how often you fill the tank. The smaller tank has to be refilled more frequently and there is a time cost with that as you have to at best slow down and enter a rest area and at worst leave the freeway to get to the super charger. This adds time. ABRP used to have a field, defaulted to 5 minutes, to be added to the charging time to account for fiddling around at the super charger before starting the charge and after completing it ("Maude, where'd I put my sunglasses?"). With a smaller tank your choices as to which SC you can use may be limited i.e. you may have to charge at 125 kW ones because you haven't the range to get to the next 250 kW one.

If I run your trip on ABRP with a TriMotor then only two charging stops (they are long ones - over an hour each) are necessary and charging time drops to 2:39 minutes which is about 50 minutes less.

So there are situations where the larger battery can help in this regard and the trip under consideration here is one of them. But also note that you may not want to accept ABRP's plan. Maybe you don't want to charge for over an hour in Pimm, NV or you may be uncomfortable with the fact that you will be arriving there with 10% margin and thus decide to insert an extra charging stop along the way. So there are lots and lots of "it depends" decisions to be made. Keep playing with ABRP. There's only one better way to find out how these trips go in a BEV and that's to drive one which you might want to consider doing. There are places that specialize in renting Teslas.

 

[VolklKatana]

everyone is assuming that the range hasnt changed from the debut...could be another example of under promising and over delivering.

My guess is that those numbes go up on battery day but we will know for sure on the 22nd!

 

[Crissa]

Also remember that you may actually get to your destination faster by driving slower.

This is really pronounced with a motorcycle where energy consumption can be dropped massively by dropping speed., but if only slower chargers are available, sometimes the 30mph road will get you to the end fast than the 70mph one because you can skip a charging point.

-Crissa

 

[MEDICALJMP]

Also remember that you may actually get to your destination faster by driving slower.

This is really pronounced with a motorcycle where energy consumption can be dropped massively by dropping speed., but if only slower chargers are available, sometimes the 30mph road will get you to the end fast than the 70mph one because you can skip a charging point.

-Crissa

Very true, but I have a need. A need for speed.

 

[ajdelange]

My guess is that those numbes go up on battery day but we will know for sure on the 22nd!

There is little doubt in most peoples' minds that the numbers promised at the reveal had at least some of the anticipated improvements in battery tech baked in. At this point they should have a pretty good idea as to how the batteries they will put in the CT are going to perform. So, assuming as we all are, that they will announce batteries appreciably better than the current tech I don't expect much change in CT specs. But there is the possibility of change in S3XY. I don't know what to expect there. The improvements we are all anticipating can be turned into lower cost or greater range or perhaps a bit of both. With Lucid likely to claim better range than the S (Sept 9) the temptation may be to go for range in the S. OTOH dropping the price of the 3 might be the good move there. ???