InsideEVs Podcast episodes
- Thread starter Domenick
- Start date
- Replies 624
- Views 160K
-
- Tags
- insideevs podcast
Good program but you missed the curious battery configuration changes.
- Some of the Lucid images showed a unified, single height battery. But there were two sections showing a 'foot well' gap in the battery for the rear seat passengers.
- The Lucid presentation was very nice although I didn't care for all the 'eye candy' and 'tourist brochure' for California. The scripted Q&A provided nothing of value.
- The Lucid Gravity is a station wagon profile. I have no problem with station wagons but amazed that no one else sees it. The length gives it away.
- IMHO, the Lucid, front LED lens system is awesome. I can see it both turning into turns and reduced glare to on coming traffic. More importantly, software should be able to make them meet anyone's headlight requirements.
- BTW, Lucid claims 17% from what I remember, not 20%.
- FYI, GM gets an independent sales channel via Nikola so the dealer resistance to EV sales is bypassed. Of course, the Badger product remains 'vaporware'.
- When Electrify America has board members from the CCS-1 EV manufacturers, they have a chance. But this dieselgate 'door prize' remains ... not something I'm thrilled about. My BMW i3-REx is maximum 50 kW charge rate making it too expensive compared to running the REx on gas. You buy both the EV and the charging network. Today, Electrify America remains too often a bald tire.
ps. I'm glad Kyle and family are home again. With all the COVID-19 risks, you did good.
ericy
Well-Known Member
I have used EA in the past from time to time - for me the most convenient location is at their HQ in Reston (I met the CEO one morning when I first got the Kona - he had never seen the Kona in person before).
But it is somewhat unreliable - that's the elephant in the room, really. I wasn't wild about the price either, but reliability is the #1 thing they need to address. If it is the case that that this one model of charger is flawed and unreliable, then perhaps ditching them is the right thing to do (an expensive mistake, no doubt). I can usually get some sort of charge, but between NFC and/or credit card readers that don't work, sessions that terminate prematurely, and other such nonsense, it is never as simple as it should be to get the charge that I need.
I started using a free ChargePoint (50kW - further away), and I have used EVgo (100kW - a little closer) from time to time - both are more reliable. In the winter with reduced charging rates, the free 50kW became my go-to charging location. And the free one sometimes gets clogged with Uber drivers, but I can check ahead of time in the app. But now we have a free L2 at the office, so my need for DCFC has nearly evaporated.
A few years back, I had a VW diesel - they bought the thing back from me. It seems like an odd set of circumstances that I am again indirectly tied to VW.
Fastnf
Well-Known Member
The data sheet on the above link states "The station supports legacy and future battery packs from 200 to 1000 V"
Here is a link to the data sheet https://www.evchargesolutions.com/v/downloads/ChargePoint-CPE-250.pdf
Domenick
Well-Known Member
Nice summary of the news but Tom deserves kudos for an excellent rant about billing for charging:
- time based rates - Tesla also does this at many SuperCharger sites. Not only does it encourage manufacturers and owners to buy quicker, fast DC chargers, Tesla sent an over-the-air update that jumped my Std Rng Plus Model 3 from ~102 kW peak (original) to ~170 kW peak with a well controlled ramp down.
- kw based rates - there needs to be some sort of rental or billing for the parking space. A slow EV blocking others is no better than parking an ICE in that spot.
Bob Wilson
Domenick
Well-Known Member
Fine show but a little 'long on the tooth'. Thanks to YouTube, I can play it back at a reasonable speed. Just sharing:
- Stockholder and battery day - ~3.5 hrs
- 0:00 - 1:00 hr - eye-candy and stockholder meeting ... they worked hard to make it boring.
- 1:00 - 3:30 hr - let's get technical stuffing 2.5 hrs of content into 15-30 minute minds. Thank heaven Sandy Munro added his content and he only covered ~33% of the important stuff. As for other 'analysts', I play them back at 2x because they missed so much. My recommendation is this part of the video requires 3-4 passes to plumb the depths and at speeds closer to 1.25. Now if I could just find folks to chat with about the technical minutia like SEI layer, sodium chloride extraction of lithium clay, and battery-as-pack (reliability vs. maintainable.) <SIGH>
- Press Release cars - I appreciate the time spent but too little technical data with too much eye candy. A better example, Bjørn Nyland's reviews because he weights the cars, multi-pass max acceleration with details, and does a range test. Seriously, I'm waiting for the EPA 'Test Car Database' entries which I start with the roll-down coefficients and weight. If you'll would add a time vs charge rate chart, it would be unique and useful.
- User questions on future podcasts, you'll need to enable a 'chat stream' and be precise on the start time. Some of us have real lives and chores.
Last edited:
ericy
Well-Known Member
I am kind of a Tesla-skeptic. Meaning, I will believe it when I see it. There are far too many things out there from lots of companies that sound good in the lab that never make it to the street, and in the past Musk has promised things that took a long time to pan out. So I skipped the entire bit about battery day, as it just didn't interest me. Regarding the Lithium, I didn't really think Lithium was a major cost in current batteries. There are all kinds of people trying to reduce/replace Cobalt and Nickel - lots of things in academic research papers where they make claims that sound promising. And who knows - in 5 years maybe one of those will be mature enough for production vehicles.
The VW bit was quite interesting - if I didn't already have an EV, I might have reserved one. It remains to be seen how well they can scale up production. And I agree - for average people, getting a car with a 5-second 0-60 is just wasted money. Focus on average people who just need a daily driver and who never go to the track (except perhaps as a spectator).
At one time early on, the podcasts were live-streamed. But it hasn't been that way for many weeks.
The VW bit was quite interesting - if I didn't already have an EV, I might have reserved one. It remains to be seen how well they can scale up production. And I agree - for average people, getting a car with a 5-second 0-60 is just wasted money. Focus on average people who just need a daily driver and who never go to the track (except perhaps as a spectator).
At one time early on, the podcasts were live-streamed. But it hasn't been that way for many weeks.
electriceddy
Moderator
I like the idea of a viewer question period, as Kyle started into. As Bob mentioned above chat format could involve some of this time. I might suggest a thread on this forum, set up like a mailbox specific to questions for future podcasts, which would give the hosts time to prepare an integral answer ahead of time.
ericy
Well-Known Member
Some of the time finding answers will take a bit of legwork to find the answer. Doing it live would mean that they might just not try and answer such questions.
Simple things like "would you buy X or Y" are relatively easy.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
I'll repeat the comments I posted to the InsideEVs News article (posting as RoadRunner48):
I flatly don't believe Tesla will make cars with a battery pack which can't be replaced if it goes bad. Yes, the presenters did confusingly talk about it as if the pack would be integrated into the chassis of the car, but the images they showed on the screen during that segment of the presentation clearly showed the pack as a separate thing, with a cover put over it before it's fastened to the two-part cast chassis.
The idea of using the battery pack to stiffen and reinforce the car is exactly what Tesla did with the Model S/X packs, which were bolted on. Now, I do recall that for their trial battery swap, Tesla did have to modify the MSs which were capable of swapping. I never saw any details about exactly what modifications were necessary. Perhaps Tesla also glues or spot-welds the pack into place, in addition to bolting it on? Well, whatever they did, they were able to swap out battery packs in the MS/MX, and I'm confident they'll be able to do the same with this new design, which is actually just going back to the pre-Model 3 design.
I mean, really, it makes no sense to design a BEV so that you can't swap out the battery pack if it goes bad. That would mean having to junk the entire car every time that happened, and for what? What advantage would there be? I submit that makes no sense at all.
* * * * *
I'm not buying that the Plaid Model S will use the new 4680 cells. As Dom pointed out, the cells are rather too tall to fit in the existing battery pack, and what would Tesla do, reduce the ground clearance? No. Tesla would have to redesign the entire car, especially if they're gonna use that giant cast chassis to mate with the 4680 battery pack. That would no longer be the Model S; it would be something else. Of course, auto makers do sometimes start making an entirely new model but give it the same name as the model it's replacing, and perhaps Tesla will do that. But if so, that will certainly be confusing!
How can Tesla get to a 520 mile range for the Plaid Model S without using the 4680 cells? As one of the podcasters pointed out, Lucid is claiming to have that, obviously without Tesla's new cells. The Model S was designed 9 years ago, for heaven's sake! The energy density of Panasonic's 18650 and 2170 cells has improved enough for Tesla to put 120 or 125 kWh of batteries in the Model S, if they want to. If Lucid can do it, Tesla certainly can.
I have predicted in the past that the Plaid Model S will use 2170 cells, which will make using the sort of cooling system the Model 3 uses easier. We do know the Plaid Model S has improved cooling. It may also be that switching to Model 3 pack architecture allows for better pack-level energy density, and if so then Tesla can squeeze in even more kWh. I'm sticking to my prediction for 2170 cells.
* * * * *
Martyn: Thank you for raising the subject of fast-charging speed! Yes, I was quite disappointed that the presentation said very little about the improved heat conductance of these cells, and how that will enable much faster fast-charging. Will that be one of the things Tesla will be revealing in the coming weeks, or are they going to keep the degree (pun intended) of improvement in cooling a trade secret until they reveal a quantum jump in faster charging with the next generation of Superchargers?
* * * * *
Kyle: Thanks for pointing out that the image they showed of the Plaid Model S was just a stock image of the current Model S. It doesn't even have the enlarged front air scoops that the prototype Plaid Model S's have. So yeah, we can be almost completely certain that the actual Plaid Model S will look somewhat different than the current design. The interesting question, worth plenty of speculation, is just how different it's going to look!
* * * * *
Re 0-60 time for the VW I.D. 4: I totally agree that VW did the smart thing by not trying to challenge Tesla for the jackrabbit start time. It's a family car; the range and fast-charging speed will be much more important than the 0-60 time, which will still be significantly faster than gasmobiles in this segment. Let us EV advocates and fans remember, it's those gasmobiles which every BEV should be competing against, not other BEVs!
Apparently the I.D. 4 won't compete with the Model 3/Y for fast-charging speed, but that's a consequence of a lower-power powertrain. If the battery pack isn't designed for high power jackrabbit starts, then it's hardly surprising it can't handle the higher power of 250+ kW charging. 125 max kW charging isn't great, but again this isn't a high-performance car. VW had to save money somewhere, and the lower fast-charging speed is one place it saved money. I'm not going to "ding" them for a lower fast-charging speed in a car aimed at the masses.
* * * * *
Re California supposedly banning ICEVs by 2035? Frankly, who cares what politicians announce as plans for 15 years from now? We see this sort of thing in various countries, as well as California, all the time. It's just aspirational; it doesn't actually mean anything. Politicians 15 years from today won't feel they are bound to goals set by politicians today. Also, look what happened back in 1999-2000 when California's CARB tried to mandate that all auto makers had to offer a certain percentage of their automobile lines zero-emission cars. That was definitely premature, and auto makers successfully pressured California's legislature to roll back that mandate.
So really, this is virtually meaningless. Governments, whether nations or States, should stick to gradually tightening emission limits and offering tax incentives on EVs, to push the EV revolution along. Trying to order everybody to stop driving ICEVs by a certain date... that's just not realistic. And absolute ban would create a backlash, and lots of court cases where people would (often quite correctly) point out that their business or their job depends on using ICEVs.
BEVs can't replace all ICEVs at once, or even in 15 years. As an EV advocate I'd love to think that's possible, but it's entirely unrealistic. There will continue to be, at a minimum, exceptions for certain people; hardship exemptions and other exceptions for people who make a good case for BEVs not working for them.
I flatly don't believe Tesla will make cars with a battery pack which can't be replaced if it goes bad. Yes, the presenters did confusingly talk about it as if the pack would be integrated into the chassis of the car, but the images they showed on the screen during that segment of the presentation clearly showed the pack as a separate thing, with a cover put over it before it's fastened to the two-part cast chassis.
The idea of using the battery pack to stiffen and reinforce the car is exactly what Tesla did with the Model S/X packs, which were bolted on. Now, I do recall that for their trial battery swap, Tesla did have to modify the MSs which were capable of swapping. I never saw any details about exactly what modifications were necessary. Perhaps Tesla also glues or spot-welds the pack into place, in addition to bolting it on? Well, whatever they did, they were able to swap out battery packs in the MS/MX, and I'm confident they'll be able to do the same with this new design, which is actually just going back to the pre-Model 3 design.
I mean, really, it makes no sense to design a BEV so that you can't swap out the battery pack if it goes bad. That would mean having to junk the entire car every time that happened, and for what? What advantage would there be? I submit that makes no sense at all.
* * * * *
I'm not buying that the Plaid Model S will use the new 4680 cells. As Dom pointed out, the cells are rather too tall to fit in the existing battery pack, and what would Tesla do, reduce the ground clearance? No. Tesla would have to redesign the entire car, especially if they're gonna use that giant cast chassis to mate with the 4680 battery pack. That would no longer be the Model S; it would be something else. Of course, auto makers do sometimes start making an entirely new model but give it the same name as the model it's replacing, and perhaps Tesla will do that. But if so, that will certainly be confusing!
How can Tesla get to a 520 mile range for the Plaid Model S without using the 4680 cells? As one of the podcasters pointed out, Lucid is claiming to have that, obviously without Tesla's new cells. The Model S was designed 9 years ago, for heaven's sake! The energy density of Panasonic's 18650 and 2170 cells has improved enough for Tesla to put 120 or 125 kWh of batteries in the Model S, if they want to. If Lucid can do it, Tesla certainly can.
I have predicted in the past that the Plaid Model S will use 2170 cells, which will make using the sort of cooling system the Model 3 uses easier. We do know the Plaid Model S has improved cooling. It may also be that switching to Model 3 pack architecture allows for better pack-level energy density, and if so then Tesla can squeeze in even more kWh. I'm sticking to my prediction for 2170 cells.
* * * * *
Martyn: Thank you for raising the subject of fast-charging speed! Yes, I was quite disappointed that the presentation said very little about the improved heat conductance of these cells, and how that will enable much faster fast-charging. Will that be one of the things Tesla will be revealing in the coming weeks, or are they going to keep the degree (pun intended) of improvement in cooling a trade secret until they reveal a quantum jump in faster charging with the next generation of Superchargers?
* * * * *
Kyle: Thanks for pointing out that the image they showed of the Plaid Model S was just a stock image of the current Model S. It doesn't even have the enlarged front air scoops that the prototype Plaid Model S's have. So yeah, we can be almost completely certain that the actual Plaid Model S will look somewhat different than the current design. The interesting question, worth plenty of speculation, is just how different it's going to look!
* * * * *
Re 0-60 time for the VW I.D. 4: I totally agree that VW did the smart thing by not trying to challenge Tesla for the jackrabbit start time. It's a family car; the range and fast-charging speed will be much more important than the 0-60 time, which will still be significantly faster than gasmobiles in this segment. Let us EV advocates and fans remember, it's those gasmobiles which every BEV should be competing against, not other BEVs!
Apparently the I.D. 4 won't compete with the Model 3/Y for fast-charging speed, but that's a consequence of a lower-power powertrain. If the battery pack isn't designed for high power jackrabbit starts, then it's hardly surprising it can't handle the higher power of 250+ kW charging. 125 max kW charging isn't great, but again this isn't a high-performance car. VW had to save money somewhere, and the lower fast-charging speed is one place it saved money. I'm not going to "ding" them for a lower fast-charging speed in a car aimed at the masses.
* * * * *
Re California supposedly banning ICEVs by 2035? Frankly, who cares what politicians announce as plans for 15 years from now? We see this sort of thing in various countries, as well as California, all the time. It's just aspirational; it doesn't actually mean anything. Politicians 15 years from today won't feel they are bound to goals set by politicians today. Also, look what happened back in 1999-2000 when California's CARB tried to mandate that all auto makers had to offer a certain percentage of their automobile lines zero-emission cars. That was definitely premature, and auto makers successfully pressured California's legislature to roll back that mandate.
So really, this is virtually meaningless. Governments, whether nations or States, should stick to gradually tightening emission limits and offering tax incentives on EVs, to push the EV revolution along. Trying to order everybody to stop driving ICEVs by a certain date... that's just not realistic. And absolute ban would create a backlash, and lots of court cases where people would (often quite correctly) point out that their business or their job depends on using ICEVs.
BEVs can't replace all ICEVs at once, or even in 15 years. As an EV advocate I'd love to think that's possible, but it's entirely unrealistic. There will continue to be, at a minimum, exceptions for certain people; hardship exemptions and other exceptions for people who make a good case for BEVs not working for them.
ericy
Well-Known Member
Regarding batteries as structural members....
If the battery packs are servicable, then how is that different from cars already on the road where the entire pack can be dropped and replaced? And if it can't be replaced, then I think it is a dealbreaker.
That particular part of the thing just seemed like a half-baked brainstorming idea that they were just tossing out there that in effect just wasted our time while giving the appearance that they are innovating.
If the battery packs are servicable, then how is that different from cars already on the road where the entire pack can be dropped and replaced? And if it can't be replaced, then I think it is a dealbreaker.
That particular part of the thing just seemed like a half-baked brainstorming idea that they were just tossing out there that in effect just wasted our time while giving the appearance that they are innovating.
Sandy Munro pointed out that maintainability and reliability are in conflict. So either single castings for the rear and front has to be replaced in whole, not patches of parts. In the event of a crash, either casting and any sheet metal skin has to be replaced to repair. So a one-piece, battery pack can be replaced by disconnecting the front and rear castings. Piece of cake in competent body shops.
A damaged battery pack by itself is not repairable because the epoxy makes the cells top and bottom into a solid piece. I suppose someone could saw one up (sparks!!!) to make usable sections. But it makes more sense to sell them to a recycler.
Bob Wilson
A damaged battery pack by itself is not repairable because the epoxy makes the cells top and bottom into a solid piece. I suppose someone could saw one up (sparks!!!) to make usable sections. But it makes more sense to sell them to a recycler.
Bob Wilson
ericy
Well-Known Member
For a newer car I can see that it might be worth the expense of swapping the pack. Once the car gets to a certain age, it would no longer be worth the trouble to replace and the whole car is a write-off.
Even if there weren't epoxy, with the 2170 cells all spot-welded together, it would be really hard to service the thing. I suppose it is all for thermal management that they do all of this, and that this is the price you need to pay to achieve the much higher charging rates.
Other automakers that use other types of batteries (prismatic or pouch), where the battery packs are more serviceable, and replacing parts of the pack is at least theoretically possible (most likely at a facility where they re-manufacture/refurbish packs that come in).
I have a 2014 BMW i3-REx and BMW won’t let me upgrade it to a higher capacity pack. I don’t know of anyone but the Prius owner who have replaced their pack with better ones from salvage Prius. Toyota failed too.
Bob Wilson
Bob Wilson
Domenick
Well-Known Member
Thanks, though apologies for the length.
I'll mention this to the other guys. I really like this idea because max charging power of a vehicle doesn't tell the whole story.
We'd love to do the podcast live with the enabled chat stream, but it took too long for YouTube to turn the livestream into a video that people could watch. Still looking into how we can have a quick turnaround so we can do it live. And yes, the goal would be to start at 9:30 sharp, but every once in a while it may not be possible to meet that, due to the logistics of coordinating the schedules of 4 people.
Domenick
Well-Known Member
Lithium isn't a major cost, but it's still a cost and getting it cheaper helps. However, the big deal about this, if successful, is supply. There are forecasts of shortages around 2025, so if Tesla can actually develop and exploit this method and resource by then, it could help big time.
Domenick
Well-Known Member
I like this idea too. I believe we choose questions from Twitter this time, but it would be nice to have them sent to a central location. YouTube comment section and here could work for now. We are down our seasoned podcasting professional this show coming up (Martyn), so I don't see us taking action on a centralized question depot this week.
I'm looking at it as also a 'blocking' action. We know most of the honorable competition is not building their own battery production lines but outsourcing to the 'usual suspects.' Tesla, unlike the others, is side-stepping the cell market.
Bob Wilson