Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Unveils New Electric Car Batteries For Up To 430 Miles of Range (electrek.co)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: At the Frankfurt Motor Show (IAA Cars 2017) this week, Samsung's battery division, Samsung SDI, showcases a new "Multifunctional battery pack" solution to enable more range in electric vehicles as the Korean company tries to carve itself a bigger share of the growing automotive battery market. Most established automakers, like Nissan with the LEAF or even GM with the more recent Chevy Bolt EV, have been using large prismatic cells to build their electric vehicle battery packs. Tesla pioneered a different approach using thousands of individual smaller cylindrical li-ion battery cells in each pack. Earlier this year, Samsung unveiled its own '2170' battery cell to compete with Tesla/Panasonic. Now they are claiming that they can reach an impressive energy density by using those cells in new modules: "'Multifunctional battery pack' of Samsung SDI attracted the most attention. Its users can change the number of modules as they want as if they place books on a shelf. For example, if 20 modules are installed in a premium car, it can go 600 to 700 kilometers. If 10 to 12 modules are mounted on a regular sedan, it can run up to 300 kilometers. This pack is expected to catch the eyes of automakers, because they can design a car whose mileage may vary depending on how many modules of a single pack are installed."

90 comments

  1. Multifunctional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So it also works as a road flare in case of emergency?

    1. Re: Multifunctional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

      It causes its own emergency.

      But thanks to Samsung always on microphone, it can dial 911 automatically and let the emergency services listen to your screaming

  2. so...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it take AA batteries?

    1. Re:so...? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Will it take AA batteries?

      This car does.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  3. I'm intrigued... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So can I trade my wife for an extra 150 km?

  4. Fine as long as. by deviated_prevert · · Score: 3, Funny

    The packs are not made from all the recycled Samsung cell phones.

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  5. Relevant questions by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Compared to existing batteries:

    1) How much does it cost?
    2) How fast can you charge it?
    3) Are any affordable cars going to support it?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Relevant questions by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Beat me to the punch ;)

      Gravimetric energy density is one of the least important aspects these days. Back in the lead-acid days, improving it it was a huge deal because lead-acids made cars impractically heavy for a reasonable range. Those days are gone. As noted in this post:

      The base curb weight of the Tesla Model 3, according to the official press kit, is 3549 lbs, which is 1610kg. 1730kg is the LR version, the heavier version. The BMW 3-Series ranges from 1475-1770kg. The A4 ranges from [wikipedia.org] 1410-1695 kg. I can't find an official total range for the C300, but find values ranging from 1630 kg to 1688kg to 1695kg to 1715kg. While the 1630kg is described as the "base weight" (analogous to the M3's 1610kg), I have no clue what the heaviest C300 config is, there could easily be configurations heavier than the 1715kg one.

      To sum up:
      Tesla Model 3: 1610-1730kg
      BMW 3-Series: 1475-1770kg
      Audi A4: 1410-1695kg
      Mercedes C300: 1630-1715+kg

      To repeat: The Tesla Model 3's curb weight comes in at pretty much the same range as other midrange compact sedans (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C300, etc).

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    2. Re:Relevant questions by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      When you are trying to squeeze out as much range as possible, curb weight reduction is very important. How it compares with ICE weight is meaningless.

    3. Re:Relevant questions by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it's really not. Note the above with the Model 3, for example: adding ~41% more range from batteries increases the vehicle mass by only 7%, which in turn translates to a loss of range at highway speeds of 2-3% 41% vs. 2-3%; it's not that meaningful. It'd be more like 5% for city driving, but then again, nobody cares about EV range in city driving - EVs go much further in city driving regardless, and who drives 310+ miles in-town-only per day?

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    4. Re:Relevant questions by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you are trying to squeeze out as much range as possible, curb weight reduction is very important.

      It's less important than you think. Mass matters little on long trips, unless you have poor throttle control. And EVs have regen, so if you drive correctly, it matters less than you think it does in the city, too.

      How it compares with ICE weight is meaningless.

      False. Totally false. How it compares with ICE weight is totally relevant at all times. Making a car more massive means you need more tire to pull the same number of lateral Gs, which means more rolling resistance which means poorer economy. As such, EVs tend to have narrow tires which compromise handling. Even without exotic materials, you can build a sports car under 3,000 pounds with a gasoline engine.

      People commonly described the original Prius as handling like a 1970s land yacht. It wallowed, it slid sideways going over cracked pavement in a turn, and it didn't really want to turn. Making a vehicle heavy and compromising its traction is always a down side. The up sides might well outweigh that, but a lighter vehicle is always going to be more fun to drive. It's going to remain relevant as long as we are permitted to drive ourselves.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Relevant questions by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From what I can tell it's nothing revolutionary chemistry-wise. They adopted the round cell form-factor similar to what Panasonic/Tesla use, but the real innovation here is that the battery is modular. You can relatively easily add and remove capacity, meaning you can build identical cars on your production line and then fit whatever size battery the customer wants at the last minute. Customers can also pay for upgrades later, or even rent some extra capacity.

      So the battery itself isn't that interesting, it's the BMS (battery management system) and mechanical construction that is quite clever.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Relevant questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who drives 310+ miles in-town-only per day?

      Taxis, at least in cities without permanent gridlock.

    7. Re:Relevant questions by torkus · · Score: 1

      Volumetric efficiency, and battery cost is king. Charge/discharge rates and battery life (capacity loss rate) are secondary but important

      An EV being somewhat heavier isn't a significant hinderance (within bounds of course, a 5000kg sedan isn't going to go over well) since the energy normally lost to accelerate a heavier car comes back via regenerative braking.

      However, fitting enough battery capacity for good range at a reasonable cost is what it comes down to. If the batteries were a few 100's of kh heavier it would make very little difference - especially if that provided a boost to range or lowered cost.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    8. Re:Relevant questions by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's really not. Note the above with the Model 3, for example: adding ~41% more range from batteries increases the vehicle mass by only 7%, which in turn translates to a loss of range at highway speeds of 2-3% 41% vs. 2-3%; it's not that meaningful. It'd be more like 5% for city driving, but then again, nobody cares about EV range in city driving - EVs go much further in city driving regardless, and who drives 310+ miles in-town-only per day?

      Sure, if you limit your scope to those who don't care about range, then range doesn't matter. But if you are trying to increase range, vehicle weight does matter.

    9. Re:Relevant questions by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      When you are trying to squeeze out as much range as possible, curb weight reduction is very important.

      It's less important than you think. Mass matters little on long trips, unless you have poor throttle control. And EVs have regen, so if you drive correctly, it matters less than you think it does in the city, too.

      How it compares with ICE weight is meaningless.

      False. Totally false. How it compares with ICE weight is totally relevant at all times. Making a car more massive means you need more tire to pull the same number of lateral Gs, which means more rolling resistance which means poorer economy. As such, EVs tend to have narrow tires which compromise handling. Even without exotic materials, you can build a sports car under 3,000 pounds with a gasoline engine.

      People commonly described the original Prius as handling like a 1970s land yacht. It wallowed, it slid sideways going over cracked pavement in a turn, and it didn't really want to turn. Making a vehicle heavy and compromising its traction is always a down side. The up sides might well outweigh that, but a lighter vehicle is always going to be more fun to drive. It's going to remain relevant as long as we are permitted to drive ourselves.

      A Tesla weighs what a Tesla weighs. Its range is a function of its capacity, curb weight, and aerodynamics. It doesn't matter what ICE cars weigh. You might compare to other EVs instead. They could be heavier, or lighter than an ICE, but that doesn't matter because the Tesla weighs what it must. ICE car weights are irrelevant. If ICE cars got heavier tomorrow, Tesla would perform no differently.

      And weight does matter for range, no matter how much you want to ignore it. You'll notice that the most fuel efficient vehicles are the lightest ones. It makes a big difference.

    10. Re:Relevant questions by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A Tesla weighs what a Tesla weighs. Its range is a function of its capacity, curb weight, and aerodynamics. It doesn't matter what ICE cars weigh. You might compare to other EVs instead.

      You might, but in reality, people are going to compare to all the available options which might fit their needs, not just the most similar ones.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    .... is not Wh/kg. It's $/kWh. That is by far the number one aspect for increasing adoption. Tesla for example gets a constant stream of companies pushing new battery technologies, wanting to talk about every aspect except for that one: cost per unit energy. They're always asked to cut straight to the chase.

    Of course, we're not even given Wh/kg here in this article.

    After cost per kilowatt hour, the number two factor is longevity. Because it correlates directly with cost. Generally it means you have to have shallow cycles (low DoD) if the battery isn't durable, meaning more batteries. In particular, longevity in varying temperature and charging condtions is important. In short, longevity works out to just another aspect of cost.

    Barring some unusual problems, cell safety is usually #3 or #4. Not higher, because failures can, and already are, controlled. See for example fire tests of Tesla powerwalls. A combination of physical isolation, active quench (circulating coolant), passive quench (coolant / structure thermal mass, expansion space, venting), and a wide range of other mechanisms mean that you really have to pull out all the stops to burn the packs; there have been Teslas which burned to the ground, down to smouldering wrecks, still without managing to ignite the pack.

    (Honestly, it amazes me that it's considered acceptable to store massive amounts of gasoline just in one big open tank - no isolation / compartmentalization / quench systems. Just dump it in and there you go! Not surprising that there's ~200k car fires in the US alone every year)

    The other big competitor with safety is power density - the mix of ion mobility (how fast it's physically possible to charge / discharge the cell) and efficiency (how much heat you have to remove from the cells to do so). The heat removal rate is also affected by the heat tolerance. Charge speeds are a more significant limiting factor to the number of purchases than range, and the power output of the packs and high torque they allow are one of the big selling points of EVs.

    Heck, Wh/kg (gravimetric energy density) isn't even the most important energy density measure. Practical EVs are not limited by their weights - heck, the Model 3 SR slots right into the middle of its class (compact midrange sedans in their various configurations, and the LR, while on the heavier side, still has some heavier ICE competitors). Their ranges are limited by how many cells you can physically fit into the pack without making the skateboard unreasonably bulky. For example, the Model 3 skateboard, at current cell volumetric energy densities, simply can't scale to higher than 75kWh. Doesn't matter what the gravimetric energy density is - if you want more, you need to improve the volumetric energy density.

    --
    "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    1. Re:The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still wouldn't cover me to get to work. I work remotely week on week off I drive 600 miles each way. In my Diesel, that's about 1 tank of fuel. With this range, it'd take 2 days to get home instead of 10 hrs.

    2. Re:The figure that matters... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      Not surprising that there's ~200k car fires in the US alone every year

      I think it's past time we call a carbecue a carbecue. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 1

      2 days? I think you need to look up Superchargers ;)

      The short of it: your car recharges while you're eating lunch or whatnot. The Model 3 LR for example recharges at 340 mph when it's low on charge and goes 310 miles per charge.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    4. Re:The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you have to drive at 340 mph to get a recharge going?

    5. Re:The figure that matters... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      The Model 3 LR for example recharges at 340 mph

      It's a car, not an airplane. ;-p

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:The figure that matters... by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obviously both Wh/kg and$/kWh are important. Until the Wh/kg and Wh/m^3 figures for a new tech get good enough to make it physically practical, $/kWh is irrelevant; but beyond that with most new tech there's usually an adoption curve.

      After you've done all the lab based tinkering you can to make new tech affordable, there comes a time when the only way to make it cheaper is to make it in quantity. But unless you are lucky (or persuasive) enough to be swimming in unlimited investor dollars, chances are you don't have the money to set up an operation on that scale.

      That's why you target niche applications and early tech adopters. Elon Musk was smart about this: he didn't set out to build the electric equivalent of the Model T; he started out with an exotic roadster and then a near-as-exotic high end luxury sedan.

      But then Henry Ford didn't start out with the Model T either; his first car was the Model A. The original 1903 Model A cost $800, at the time when the median US income was $543. He sold about 10,000 of them. The Model T was introduced in 1908 for $825, but five years later he managed to drop that price down to $440; sales increased twentyfold. By 1925 he'd managed to drop the price to $260 (the equivalent of less than $3700 in 2017 dollars) at a time median income had risen to $750. Not surprising he sold nearly two million of the things that year.

      That's the power of the adoption curve. Early adopters bootstrap economies of scale you need to make something cheap enough for everyone.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 2

      Also, half your miles on each trip would be at wall socket power rates (let's say you pay $0.12/kWh on both ends?) and the rest at supercharger rates ($0.20/kWh). A Model 3 LR consumes about 240 Wh/mi on the freeway (EPA 5-cycle rating (or equivalent thereof), same as your diesel). Each round trip thus costs you $46.

      I don't know what mileage you get in your diesel. Let's guess 35mpg? And your diesel costs, what, $2,40/gal? So you pay $82 per round trip. Cost difference, $36 per round trip. For what penalty... stopping to each lunch, use the bathroom, and occasionally stretch - the stuff you're actually supposed to do when driving 600 miles? ;)

      You do this week-on week-off, so you do it 26 times per year. Times $36 is $936 per year. Plus what you drive for the rest of your days - I'm guessing a third as much? So around $1200 per year. Factor in maintenance differences as you will (few moving parts, no oil changes, etc, etc).

      Insert your own numbers as needed; I think I chose reasonably conservative figures. The battery pack warranty is 8 years (although if it's anything like the Model S and Model X packs it'll hardly decline at all).

      Over where I am, it's a complete no brainer. Electricity is cheap but gasoline is almost $8/gal. So an EV pays for itself in no time flat even when ignoring the incentives.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    8. Re:The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 1

      I know it's not something ICE drivers are used to, but it's a very meaningful way to measure charge times: how many of miles of range you get per hour spent charging.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    9. Re: The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When electric vehicles become more popular the queues will grow and the wait times to "refuel " will go up considerably.

    10. Re:The figure that matters... by oic0 · · Score: 1

      And what does that do to the battery pack lifespan? An ICE lives longer and is more efficient with constant highway use vs short city trips. Electric is the opposite.

    11. Re: The figure that matters... by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

      Building charging stations is easy enough. The delivery infrastructure is already in place. They will keep pace with demand.

    12. Re:The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      there's enough data from car rental companies of teslas that have run between 100K and 300K miles and show very little battery performance downgrade. That covers the mileage/cycles part. If there are concerns about downgrade with age, we may have to wait a bit for that. But if you get 300K for your car in 10 years and have to replace the battery, are you going to complain? its not that much different from a ICE wear and tear at that point. Just a thought...

    13. Re:The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With gas refueling I can bill an extra hour+ of my time on the trip, which totally swamps your other cost savings.

    14. Re: The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop thinking gas.
      Having to drive to a separate place to fuel up your car is a joke, no-one wants to do that if they don't have to.
      We only accept that crap because we are used to it from combustion engines.

      The arguments we are having here is about the edge cases, not the average.
      The vast majority of drivers only drives within a single charge, they don't want to stop at a charging station. They charge at home or at work.

      The queues at charging stations are never going to be as bad as those at gas stations, especially not since we already see a trend where grocery stores and restaurants put up charging stations to lure in customers.
      When electric vehicles becomes really popular every roadside restaurant is going to have charging stations at the parking to make people stop and eat there.

    15. Re: The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly; when you run the numbers it's easy to see the profit margin on them. They buy power at industrial rates (huge bulk), which in the US average something like $0.06-0.07/kWh, and sell it back for $0.20/kWh. The demand charges can be significant at low/uneven utilization rates, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about "when electric vehicles become more popular". The station is much cheaper than a gas station to build; a typical 8-stall supercharging station today costs around $250k on average, and we're nowhere near mass production now. Punch in the numbers at say 30% average utilization and you find that it's easy to show significant profitability.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    16. Re:The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Wait, you can bill your refueling time? So shouldn't you want longer breaks then?

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    17. Re:The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 2

      That's simply not true. Here is a survey of data gathered from Tesla owners. Click charts. Typical first-year degradation rates are about 4%, but then it slows down significantly from there. Average year-5 degradation appears to be a total of around 6-7% versus a new pack. A gas or diesel car's efficiency (and thus range) will have generally dropped well more than that by year 5.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    18. Re:The figure that matters... by fnj · · Score: 1

      A gas or diesel car's efficiency (and thus range) will have generally dropped well more than that by year 5.

      Utter idiotic bullshit. My Golf TDI has now been on the road for 17 years, and gets exactly the same fuel mileage that it got brand new: about 45 mpg real-world. You're living in the 1930s or 1940s if you think annual tune-ups are a thing.

    19. Re:The figure that matters... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      A gas or diesel car's efficiency (and thus range) will have generally dropped well more than that by year 5.

      Bollocks. My 1998 A8 Quattro gets the same kind of mileage it did when it was new, which admittedly ain't great. Regular oil changes and a superior design (to other ICEs) to start with have kept its engine in practically like-new condition. Compression is still well to the high end of the range, the cylinders are smooth like glass as one would expect (they are glass, it's got an Alusil block) and it passes an emissions test with absolutely flying colors.

      Now granted, we've also got a 2000 astro that's had both engine and transmission rebuilt. So not everything is made well. But plenty of vehicles were, and if they were maintained, they're still great.

      The benefit of EVs isn't that they keep working, it's that they require less maintenance over the same period, and they run on electricity. But gasoline vehicles are quite long-lived, now, so long as you replace any of the hundreds of baroque little bullshit parts that break.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:The figure that matters... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why do EV proponents always think it will be awesome to stop where there is an EV station? Sure even people in ICEs need to stop once in awhile but I sure don't want to be forced to hang around a filling station when I stop. Everything is sure to be twice the price there for one thing.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    21. Re: The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it have a flux capacitor or something?

    22. Re: The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah so you're taking a term with a well known meaning (mph), and think overloading it with a completely different meaning is a good idea. You must be a C++ programmer.

    23. Re:The figure that matters... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Because like now with chargers they're at stores like the grocery or your work. Restaurants and other places will put them in since you don't need much. There's one at a community college near me, all of my offices and they're putting them in at strip mall type places like where the movie theater is. You'll basically pull into a McDonalds or wherever and park and charge and eat your meal, take a poop, and get back on the road.

    24. Re:The figure that matters... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      So you never use fuel injector cleaner or get new spark plugs or new air filters? That's all tune up stuff. So GTFO with that nonsense. My Ranger was getting crappy mileage and I used 44K and it got back some mpg, same with a friends Volvo.

    25. Re:The figure that matters... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      See, cars should be cheaper, like under 4 grand.

    26. Re:The figure that matters... by hey! · · Score: 1

      And easily modifiable to the user's needs too. That was possibly the coolest thing about the Model T, which is why the basic design lasted for twenty years, well after it had become hopelessly archaic. It was easy to hack. For the modern equivalent of three grand you got a basic, functional vehicle that could be turned into a cargo van, farm truck, or ski slope rope tow by anyone who could wield a hacksaw.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re:The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, while eating lunch they slowly raise your car into the sky and then let it go down a roller coaster like device and let the regen charge the battery at 340 mph.

    28. Re:The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's also worth pointing out that "6-7% loss" on a 30mpg car is 2mpg. An amount that the average person wouldn't even notice.

      It's funny when people put old cars on the dynamometer how much power they turn out to have lost. There's so much that can rob a car of power as it ages. Just to pick a random example: my high mileage Insight at one point was having trouble starting, and they took out one of its catalyst packs, and discovered that it was literally clogged to the brim with carbon buildup. To the point that when they took it out it made a big mess of on the floor of the workshop.

      How often does the average person remove a catalytic converter on their car?

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    29. Re: The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do like C++ ;) But discussing charge rates in mph or kph is extremely common among EV owners. Because it's literally what you're getting: X miles/kilometers range per hour of charging.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    30. Re:The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losing peak power != losing efficiency.

    31. Re: The figure that matters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Most peoples daily needs are handled by home recharging. Only people traveling long distances are going to use a charging station. This might be an issue on holidays when a lot of people are traveling long distances but even if that is a concern electric charging stations scale much easier than gas, unlike gas where you need large underground storage tanks, tankers, etc with electric vehicle charging all you need is a charging station (basically a transformer) and access to a power line.

    32. Re:The figure that matters... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. Backpressure like the above reduces your vehicle's efficiency. The more the backpressure, the more work that has to be done by the engine to clear the exhaust (which is experienced as greater engine braking). That's the very reason why vehicle mileages dropped when the government started mandating cats.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    33. Re:The figure that matters... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Last I heard several years ago, at the end of the year North Carolina will send you a tax bill for $1000 is you have an electric car. That cost is assumed to be built into the purchase of the diesel fuel.

      Somebody has to pay for laying all that asphalt and concrete.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    34. Re:The figure that matters... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So this doesn't answer my question. What if the restaurant I want to stop at isn't around a charging station? Let's put it that way.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. Better range by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    Than my hyundai. 80 more miles (per full tank(

    Of course the real concern I'd have is what charging stations are available outside of my garage. you know, in case I want to drive more than 430 miles... As far as I know all brands of gasoline work in my car, and I don't have to use a GPS and the Internet to find a compatible gas station.

    1. Re:Better range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow what an insightful comment. Thanks for posting the exact same shit that's been said 3,000 times before.

    2. Re:Better range by Rei · · Score: 2

      Teslas can charge on almost anything. They can charge on superchargers, CHAdeMOs, J1772s, RV sockets, dryer outlets, range outlets, wall sockets, etc. The only thing they can't charge off of are CCS Combos - but those are generally paired with CHAdeMOs.

      The nav system in Teslas knows where all of the superchargers are. It'd be nice if it also knew where other chargers are, but they're generally not needed.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    3. Re:Better range by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Since Tesla opened up their patents for charging, I would hope all the car makers are using their ports and wiring.

    4. Re:Better range by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      The irony being that CCS combo has pretty much won the charging battle at this point. Only Tesla and Nissan use something else, meanwhile BMW, VW, Audi, Chevrolet, Mercedes, and Ford all use CCS combo for DC charging.

    5. Re:Better range by sfcat · · Score: 1

      The irony being that CCS combo has pretty much won the charging battle at this point. Only Tesla and Nissan use something else, meanwhile BMW, VW, Audi, Chevrolet, Mercedes, and Ford all use CCS combo for DC charging.

      My Volt (Chevy) uses J1772. The CCS combo chargers are mostly used in what I call the "barely legal" EVs. Basically hybrids with bigger battery packs so they can be called EVs and sold in California to cover a legal requirement which means they don't have to give $$ to Telsa to sell cars in California. I don't tend to see them in the more popular EVs that are designed for actual use/impact (Volts and EVs with 300+ mi range).

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    6. Re: Better range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing they can't charge off of are CCS Combos - and those are the vast majority of public chargers

      FTFY.

    7. Re: Better range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why use Tesla's technically inferior proprietary connection rather than the standard now used by almost every car brand?

    8. Re:Better range by Rei · · Score: 2

      The future looks likely to be a CCS variant, however. That said, Tesla is a member of CharIN, so will probably be adopting the next standard.

      I'm so glad that Tesla is in CharIN, by the way. Why is it that the only company who seems to know how to engineer a proper connector is Tesla? Always sleek, easy, minimal form factors with extreme power - never giant, awkward, limited-power frankenconnectors like others seem to design.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    9. Re: Better range by Rei · · Score: 2

      Simply not true. First off, in many places (including the US), the "majority of public chargers" are superchargers. Not that most of the DC charger icons on Plugshare will be superchargers, but simply because there's so many stalls per supercharger site.

      Let's zoom out to a far view of the US and start picking random DC icons on PlugShare, shall we? Here's my results:

      Dennis Dillon Nissan: EV Plug (J1772), CHAdeMO DCFC
      St. George Supercharger: 8 Tesla Superchargers
      Woodstock Supercharger: 8 Tesla Superchargers
      Alexandria Supercharger: 8 Tesla Superchargers
      AAA: CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      McAllen Supercharger: 8 Tesla Superchargers
      St. George Supercharger: 8 Tesla Superchargers
      The Shops at Sunset Place: 2 Wall Outlet (120V)s, EV Plug (J1772), CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      West Wendover Supercharger: 6 Tesla Superchargers

      Hmm... to be fair, Plugshare may be biasing my random clicks because Tesla has a lot more on the interstates between cities, while all chargers inside cities get bunched together; you can see that above I ended up with 46 superchargers vs. 4 CHAdeMO and 3 CCS (the latter being in all likelyhood not on a separate charger, but rather sharing a cable with the CHAdeMOs and only able to charge one car at a time).

      Let's pick a random boring city and zoom in to try to end up with a higher percentage of non-Tesla chargers... let's say, Cleveland.

      Walmart: 2 EV Plug (J1772)s, CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Walmart Supercenter: 2 EV Plug (J1772)s, CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Walmart Supercenter: 2 EV Plug (J1772)s, CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Walmart Supercenter: 4 EV Plug (J1772)s, CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Transformer Station Contemporary Art Space: CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Dunkin' Donuts: 2 CHAdeMO DCFCs, 2 CCS DCFCs
      CNG Metro Station: CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Walmart Supercenter: 2 EV Plug (J1772)s, CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Macedonia Supercharger: 6 Tesla Superchargers
      Tesla Motors: 2 Tesla Model S / Model Xs, Tesla Supercharger
      Walmart: 2 EV Plug (J1772)s, CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC
      Walmart Supercenter: 2 EV Plug (J1772)s, CHAdeMO DCFC, CCS DCFC

      Notice: once again it's a bunch of shared CHAdeMO/CCS chargers.

      Okay, so maybe your statement is supposed to be about Europe? Well I can assure you that at least where I am (Iceland), all of the stations are both CCS/CHAdeMO (one vehicle at a time, pick your cable). Random clicking on a map of Europe finds that this appears to be the standard.

      Where are you that you're finding mainly CCS-only chargers?

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    10. Re: Better range by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technically inferior.... lol. A form factor half the size of a CHAdeMO but delivering three times the current, "technically inferior"? Yeah, try again.

      CHAdeMO is a pefect example of how not to design a connector. CCS combo is okay, but still a Frankenconnector, needlessly large and awkward, and with too little current support.** Tesla has by far the best connectors. Even in Europe where they were mandated to include a Type 2, they modified the Type 2 so that it can handle both low power AC and extreme power DC charging in the exact same connector. Rather than CCS which decided that you needed to add a big two pronged "growth" onto your connector to do so.

      ** - There are a very small number of high power CCS stations, ~150kW or so. But they do this by increasing the voltage, not the current. Which is great if you have a mythical EV with a 1000V battery pack. Even the nominal ~50kWh stations often play the voltage game; that 50kW is often assuming that you're charging at 500V, but most packs have a well lower voltage than that.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    11. Re:Better range by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      My Volt (Chevy) uses J1772.

      Yes - that's because everyone other than Tesla uses J1772 for AC charging. CCS combo is J1772 + some extra pins to enable DC charging too. The only Chevy that currently supports DC charging is the Bolt - which uses CCS combo.

      As I said above - every EV maker other than Tesla and Nissan that supports DC charging uses CCS combo.

    12. Re: Better range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea about the US (haven't been there since they started treating visitors as criminals), but in continental Europe most stations have either only standard Mennekes/CCS plugs or both Mennekes/CCS and CHAdeMO. However, the latter is falling out of favour as the market is standardising on CCS.

    13. Re: Better range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice straw man rant against CHAdeMO, but I suggested using the standard (i.e., CCS), not CHAdeMO, which is quickly becoming irrelevant.

    14. Re: Better range by Rei · · Score: 1

      I covered both CCS and CHAdeMO in my above post. How did you not notice that?

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    15. Re: Better range by Rei · · Score: 1

      When I randomly pull up DC charging stations in continental Europe on plugshare, that's not what I find; I find mostly A) superchargers, and B) dual-plug CHAdeMO/CCS. There's the occasional pure-CHAdeMO and the occasional pure-CCS, but I'm not finding many of them in comparison to the others.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    16. Re:Better range by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, everyone except Tesla (top EV seller in the US) and Nissan (top EV seller globally).
      And, of course, Honda (Fit EV).
      And let's not forget Citroën (C-Zero, Berlingo)
      Kia too, of course (Soul EV).
      Then there's Mazda (Demio EV).
      And Mitsubishi (MiEV, Outlander PHEV - the latter being the top selling PHEV in Europe)
      Peugeots use it too (iOn, Partner - although they're just rebadges)
      Subaru? You betcha (Stella)
      Toyota? Sure (eQ, new RAV4)

      But you know, apart from all of them, nobody uses CHAdeMO.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
    17. Re:Better range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that the only company who seems to know how to engineer a proper connector is Tesla

      I hate to burst your bubble, but Tesla's connector wasn't engineerd by Tesla. It's a standard Mennekes connector with a changed pinout.

    18. Re:Better range by Rei · · Score: 1

      I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no single "Tesla connector". In the US Tesla uses a connector designed entirely by themselves. In Europe they're mandated to have a Type 2 port - but instead of awkwardly tacking on two DC pins like CCS Combo does, they managed to work it into the already-mandated Type 2 port.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
  8. I hear you can... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    ..reach around the same vertical range letting ISS crew see your burnt corpse when it explodes.

  9. Wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I'm not mistaken, 600 km = 373 miles, not 430.

  10. For its next development, by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    Samsung will add a 'feature' to the battery pack control electronics that spies on the car's occupants and reports back to headquartes in Seoul.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  11. Electric Pinto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Electric Pinto -- enough said.

  12. Good Start! by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    Now shave a zero off that price tag and you might just have something there!

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  13. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but how many D-batteries is that?

    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 430 mile range:
      a) How much do these batteries weigh?
      b) What is the volume?
      c) What is the price?

  14. It is not enough for me. by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    Since Samsung batteries explode, 430 miles is the maximum height the car can reach after the explosion. This is enough to enter a LEO trajectory, but I wait for the geostationary model, thank you.

  15. 600 miles? You don't need a car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need a plane ticket.

  16. Make me a pack for my Fluence ZE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would gladly test such a battery in my range limited Fluence ZE, would be nice to do >300 km on a single charge. The car is well layed out for long travels but is hindered by only 100 km range..

  17. No useful info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That article was so devoid of useful facts that it was practically useless. No mention of whether that 430 miles of range is US EPA standard, European NECD standard, Japanese standard, ect. All the other "mileage" standards in the world are a lot more lax than the EPA's. So if it wasn't EPA, lop 30% off the top of that range estimate. Also, how many Kwh is the pack that they're assuming will enable 430 miles? If it takes a 125 / 150Kwh pack, then that's nothing new beyond what we have now. As other's have mentioned, there's also the cost per mile metric that isn't mentioned at all, how long till they can produce these in volume, ect, ect, ect.

  18. 2170 cells look great but are also unavailable by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Earlier this year, Samsung unveiled its own '2170' battery cell to compete with Tesla/Panasonic.

    Until they start selling 2170 cells to the general public, we'll have to keep using 18650 cells in our projects.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  19. 430 mile range is not the big thing by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    If it is a battery from Samsung, I am not looking at range, I am not looking at charge times, I am not even looking at cost or life of the battery

    The key metric is mean time between spontaneous combustion.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. One Time Use by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Awesome! Now they can create a car that never needs charging ever! Just install about 10,000 of those bad boys and you get about 300,000 km per change! Seeing as the car probably won't last much longer than that anyway, you can just use your car, never charge it, and then just toss it away! Perfect!

  21. Toyota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the survey I got from Toyota asking if I would be interested in an EV that had 430 miles of range makes sense. Oddly specific.

  22. How customizable is this? by da_guy2 · · Score: 1

    Can I go with fewer packs for my everyday driving, but if I'm going on a road trip "rent" a few extra packs for the added range?

    1. Re:How customizable is this? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Sure, if you like installing objects that weigh hundreds of kilograms each.

      --
      "Casual hello, it's me, Zoidberg, act naturally."
  23. Re:Does your wife suck cock to completion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't be so quick. First you have to ask him if she'll fit in a row boat. As in, could you hypothetically share a row boat with her?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SricpmKQd3U