Cold Weather Range

[Roy2001]

1.1 mile per kWh sounds too low.

Sponsored

 

[MickeyAO]

Can’t be father from the truth actually. They are perfect for the SR lighting.

SAFE: Low incidence of a thermal runaway event (Fire) even when punctured.

Not based on the videos I've done over the last 12 years. LMO is the only chemistry that I have not seen go into a thermal runaway when punctured at 100% SOC

100% charging capability

All cells can be charged to 100%, but LFP Vmax is lower than NMC

Cheaper cost to consumer

This is a true statement as long as you disregard the total capacity of the battery pack. 141 kWh LFP will not be cheaper due to the number of cells and the total mass of the battery versus NMC

Lower battery degradation over many charging cycles.

Almost true if you use a duty cycle for LFP, but don't use an NMC BEV duty cycle and expect the same results.

IMHO the future LFP SR Lightning will charge faster in both AC and DC to 100% due to more aggressive charging curves. Manufacturers will feel better about lesser charging degradation associated with LFP. My TM3 LFP preconditioned DCFC 20-100% in 45 mins.

Opinion so not true or untrue. All chemistries have different trade-offs. LTO is great for power, but poor for energy, which makes it very good for earth-moving equipment. LMO is nice overall for light-duty cycles like a PHEV, LFP is great at lowering cost but has significant limitations for energy and power delivery, while NMC is great for a BEV duty cycle except when it comes to safety.

 

[LightningShow]

Cold weather range is the current Achilles Heel of EV's. Sure, range/ efficiency is lower in an ICE in cold temps, but not to the extent of what EVs are dealing with. I'm fully aware of cold impacts on the lithium batteries... Been a Tesla owner for 7 years now, it's not new. All EVs suffer from it. I think Ford could have done a bit more in terms of thermal management and pre-conditioning options, but overall this is just where the technology sits at the moment. As glad as I am to have a full-size truck that's an EV, and I think Ford actually did a great job here, there's still a lot of room for improvement. Tech is advancing at a good pace. I figure by the time I'm ready to upgrade the Lightning, there will be more capable options on the market at more favorable price points. And realistically, for a truck to woo me away from the Lightning it will need to offer 500+ real-world miles, 400+ in sub-zero temps. Have 800~1000V+ electrical system and charging tech, 48V low-volt that Cybertruck and others are now going to... I figure that tech is 5+ years out before it all falls into place for mainstream offerings. Should time out about right for me to replace the Lightning I just bought. Yes, I know Cybertruck will get some of these as it rolls off the line later this year. I have an early reservation and may still buy it if the timing is right. But as much as the engineer in me is geeking out about its construction, features, etc... Even as to why it looks the way it does, which is an engineering wet-dream of sorts, I can't actually find a way to like how it looks. But if it proves the utility and usefulness or capability is there, I'm willing to forego looks if/when I can buy it that it makes sense in respect to what I've already spent on the Lightning.

I guess we'll see how this all plays out in the coming years... In 25 years, we'll all look back on this and laugh in a way. We'll have 2400V+ charging infrastructure becoming more common and charging our EVs will be as fast as filling up with gas. Range will be comparable to gas vehicles, probably better... And I'll be well into my 70's and probably won't care so much.

These conversations always devolve into what we need to make better batteries but the achilles heel is actually bad charging infrastructure. The batteries are more than fine. I'd take a battery half the size in a heartbeat if I knew I always had charging in a 5 mile radius and the charge rate was 500kW. I come from the world of technology development so when I look at the landscape of EVs I see DCFC as a fully developed technology that just needs better rollout (not to mention the utility infrastructure already exists in 100% of every 1st world of the country). Developing new battery chemistries is way more difficult and time consuming. I've been saying for a while that we're already close to the high water mark for EV range. As charging infrastructure gets better I think we'll see EV range plateau or even pull back from the 300+ vehicles.

 

[Amps]

The batteries are more than fine. I'd take a battery half the size in a heartbeat if I knew I always had charging in a 5 mile radius and the charge rate was 500kW.

Exactly. It's not the batteries, it's the chargers. With deployment, I think most buyers will realize that a three to four hour drive is a fine time to pull in for a bathroom break and a ~15 minute charge.

I also think that Ford may deploy LFP as standard range trucks but will be using the size/footprint/hardware? of the extended range battery enclosure.

 

[Theo1000]

To be specific the issue is charger spacing. No more than 20-25 miles apart, 10-15 miles apart would be ideal for the general public. 5-10-20 options between charge cycles very closely matches ICE. Here in Kansas there is a 55 mile stretch of no gas stations. Folks get stranded there all the time, yet that is our best charger spacing.

 

[LightningShow]

My belief is that if we can get to the threshold of 100 miles added in 5 minutes and much better DCFC frequency then the discussion about battery size will be pretty much moot. There will always be edge cases but this would cover the needs of 99% of passenger vehicle miles driven.

Sponsored