Battery Pack Teardown Photos Reveals Empty Spaces (Sandy Munro Live)

[Woodrick]

I'm not really sure what that picture is trying to say. Except that it looks the same to an ICE as an EV. I didn't see a gas station in the picture, nor charger.

These "My needs or more than yours..." are worthless, especially if there's a non-Tesla owner in the conversation.

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

Dude, you said:

And I showed a picture of mountains, with snow, which happened to actually affect roads, as opposed to your dry roads picture.

All because you can't admit you said
...Which clearly has been proven out, the truck totally can do that.

I both live in the mountains, where it clearly snows, and am right about the truck, which clearly can reach 300 miles range.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

Maybe, this is just maybe, you will admit to making this error:

-Crissa

 

[Woodrick]

Are you that stubborn to admit that people have gotten a lot closer than you thought?

I mean, the EPA numbers are not made up. They are from actual testing. Follow the testing scenarios and you'll get the range.
Stay below 60 and you'll get the range.

 

[Crissa]

You said show one. I showed one.

Do you know what cherry-picking means?

-Crissa

 

[Woodrick]

I'm not sure if you are arguing against what I said or for it.

The EPA tests are highly standardized tests that every automaker must follow. The standards do change periodically. The EPA tried to make the standards representative of an average driving profile.

One of the biggest misunderstandings is between City and highway tests and how cars react to them. The first thing to understand is that the City tests are weighted more heavily, because the majority of miles are driven under City type conditions. 70 mph driving is not that common for most people.
And with that comes the big difference between an EV and an ICE. An EV does much better in the City tests. An ICE does terrible. An idling ICE is all smoke (that's why you see so many start/stop features now).
Highway driving is a different story and even more different than most people think.
An EVs economy is a simple math with air resistance equation, the faster you go, the harder the air pushes and the effect it exponential.
While the same thing happens to an ICE, there's more impacting it. The first is that an ICE has a optimal operation range. It looks like a U when charted out. You want to always be at the bottom of the U, where the engine is most efficient. How do you do it? With gears. So a manufacturer will calculate gear ratios so that the engine stays at optimal speeds at common travel speeds. And guess what, there's probably optimization for 60-70 mph. BUT, go above this or below this, in the same gear and economy suffers.
So unbelievable to many, at 75-80 mph, your ICE isn't going to hit it's economy either.


Here's a pretty good article on what goes into the EPA EV Fuel Economy test.
Here’s how the EPA calculates how far an EV can go on a full charge | Ars Technica

 

[Knucklehead]

You say that it's not range anxiety, you just don't like to be forced to stop. Think of it anyways you want, but ANY vehicle today will make you stop. (Except for a train/bus with overhead cam)

Range anxiety means you are worried you cannot make it to the next refueling stop. It happens with ICEVs as well as BEVs. So no, that is not what I am talking about. Because you are right about one thing: Tesla has done an excellent job of building a network of refueling locations that practically eliminate range anxiety.

And yet again, I have to explain that it isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that I hate being forced to stop. Yes, I am forced to stop with ICEVs, and I hate that also. But guess what? On a road trip, it is a non-event. I don't have to plan where we stop. I can decide where we want to eat, pee, whatever, and then grab some gas at the same time.

As much as Tesla has eliminated range anxiety, they have not duplicated the number of refueling locations that currently exist for ICEVs, right? Right. I want a BEV that allows me to approximate my experience in a ICEV. Which means longer range. Period.

I am not complaining about the CT range. I am just disappointed. I am following this forum for several reasons, but one reason was my excitement about a 500-mile BEV. Now that it does not exist, I am disappointed. Not complaining, just disappointed. And I am not interested in a 300-mile range CT. A 500-mile range CT, very much on my list. If they ever build the extender, which I seriously doubt, I will consider it.

 

[pricedm]

My wife's Jeep Grand Cherokee can go 500+ miles between refueling stops on the highway. Why do I have to settle for less in a BEV?

Plugging and charging is very nice, but really not better than gas refueling even at a SC station.

And I really, really hate stopping before I want to stop.

What this mindset never seems to acknowledge is the time spend going from home to gas station, then on to your trip, be it daily commute/ use, or longer distance travel.

I challenge this mindset to accurately acknowledge time spend on liquid fueling activities. It is not trivial.

It takes me less than 60 seconds to "fill up" my EV. That's the time to plug in after parking in my garage, and unplug before departing.

When I had my ICEmobile, I timed from leaving my garage, going to gas station, and then initial point on the highway by my house (let's call it 20 minutes). Spoiler alert-- in my EV, it took a lot less time to go from garage to highway (let's call it 10 minutes). And multiplied by once a week (or what ever), the time to refuel ICE takes longer.

500 miles between refueling stops on a road trip is 7 -9 hours of elapsed time--if one did not stop. Really? you want to sit that long? Pee in a cup while driving or something? Its not healthy.

 

[RVAC]

At first glance Sandy gave the impression 32mm was the total height but after looking at it again in more detail the referenced 32mm must not include the exposed portion of the fiberglass member but just the aluminum stringer (25mm) plus the additional height from the stamped cover (6-7mm). Compare with his finger here:

That's a lot more encouraging for the prospect of an eventual pack with a taller cell as they could theoretically fit something taller than a 4695.

 

[cgladue]

i just finished a 3700 mile cross country roadtrip that averaged 444 wh/mile (277 miles of range 0-100%) and thats with 70MPH winds and snow and rain and no Aero covers

i have no doubt that if i had sunny weather at elevation with Aero covers on and only drove 70MPH i could get over 300 miles of range. so seems as advertised in my opinion.

 

[BannedByTMC]

At first glance Sandy gave the impression 32mm was the total height but after looking at it again in more detail the referenced 32mm must not include the exposed portion of the fiberglass member but just the aluminum stringer (25mm) plus the additional height from the stamped cover (6-7mm). Compare with his finger here:

That's a lot more encouraging for the prospect of an eventual pack with a taller cell as they could theoretically fit something taller than a 4695.

If they wanted taller cells, or even double stacked, it would be relatively simply to just stamp a deeper bottom cover and make taller stringers if needed. It would reduce ground clearance of course.

Sponsored