DC Charging Peak Speed: Extended 155kW, Standard 120kW

[adoublee]

They are behind b/c Ford has stated they will only max out at 150kW, unless they are withholding information. No reason to do so. Rivian has stated their max is 210kW.

Rivian already pushed out a software update last week to improve charge curve.

On the latest Software it will hold (at least) 150kW charge until ~60% (vs dropping ~25% on TFL video).

This is a still from Out of Specs livestream where he is charging the car on a charger that will only max out at 150kW (the charger is limited, not the Truck).

It held 150kW from 0-60%

So Kyle has published his Rivian charge video with real and "theoretical" charge curves.




It is true that Rivian can spend some time at about 200kW if you are able to find a DCFC capable of 450A through the cord and when the pack voltage rises up from empty (170kW at 1% SOC).

However it appears Ford still has plenty of opportunity to outshine Rivian on thermals and provide a better driver experience. First Rivian is "behind" with no pre-conditioning the battery for fast charging (Ford might be out of the gate too, TBD). We do know that Ford at least has a battery temperature gauge that Rivian doesn't have. Vehicle SOC reading is not stable (might not be properly temperature compensated). Major thermal limits under 50% SOC (potentially undersized cooling). Power nosedive starts at 53% SOC (down to 145kW at 59% SOC, 119kW at 70%SOC, 51kW at 89% SOC).

If Ford can keep 150kW at higher SOC (well above 59%), the driver does not need to disconnect as early and operate as close to zero as they move between DCFCs. I'm hoping the higher capacity of max tow will provide innovation in this regard. To early to say they are behind Rivian.

 

[GDN]

I don't truly know how much more they could do, but this max charging speed at a DCFC of 150kW or 155kW is what bothers me and kind of pisses me off about Ford. For the price of the truck we are getting mediocre engineering and parts. For 4 years Tesla has included the parts necessary in the Model 3 to charge from the v3 Tesla chargers at 250kW and started taking advantage of that the day v3 Superchargers went online.

I know the peak charging is for a small amount of time, but Tesla estimated based on their real fleet data that Supercharging times would drop by 50% at this rate. https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-v3-supercharging

The ER version of the F150 should be able to maintain that kind of charging rate much longer than the 3/Y just due to battery being almost twice as big - or so it seems. However, we know it can't or they crippled some of the charging parts or just went cheap on them. Could it be because the battery with the pouch technology can't take the speed? Is it because there are fewer pouches and charging points into the pouches (no clue how many are in the battery yet) than the 4400+ 2170 cells in the much smaller 75 kWh Tesla battery? Is it because the Tesla battery has cooling built into every row of batteries and just performs better than the SK pouch battery?

I guess we'll soon have answers, but for the naysayers, having this charging crippled to or poorly engineered to be a max of 155kW charging speed on a battery this size could make an easy difference of several minutes per charging session. If you are traveling hard for 800 or more miles in a day and need to stop to charge 4-5 times, you could easily have 40 minutes less charging time in a single days travel. I guess this is just one thing we hope they engineer better on v2 in 3 years with a redesign.

 

[hturnerfamily]

I think some of us 'nerds', if there's not a better term to use, will be most interested in all these 'data' points and electrical 'anomalies', but I think the vast majority of Ford's bread-and-butter F150 buyers will have little interest or care about the 'differences' that 'might' have been built in or implemented. The 'stock' power, charging, and output are already FANTASTIC for most. Ford may come out with the 'MackDaddy' of F150 LIGHTNING trim level offerings next year, but let's let them get a good start before we shoot the very company that is making this exciting transition even possible. Yes, they'll be others, but Ford is what's on the radar, and probably has the most capacity to capability to really put to work in the market, quickly. I'm sure they'll all be 'good' trucks and Electric Vehicles, regardless, but someone has to start the process, or at least lead the way.

: ) it's all good.

 

[beatle]

It'll be interesting to see what the battery cooling system looks like for the F150L. The cells from the MME have vertical plates running between each cell that are bent at a 90 degree angle on the edge of the cell. The cooling plate interfaces with this edge. This should give good, even cooling across the pack since every cell gets cooled.



Tesla has cooling channels running along each module, so there are plenty of cells in the middle of the module that are only cooled by the interface between them and the adjacent cells. Cylindrical cells are more stable than pouch cells though, so Ford is likely playing the safe card here. They don't want a Bolt on their hands (which uses cells almost identical to the MME). Of course comparisons to the MME may be moot since SK may have done a completely different design for the Lightning.

Current DCFC infrastructure outside of Tesla is pretty limited in power when running 400v. The cables just aren't up to the task of running enough amps to push much beyond 150kw @ 400A anyway. Superchargers use liquid cooled cables to address this limitation which is why they can push more amps. It'll be interesting to see if 3rd party chargers go this route or just fold their arms and say to manufacturers, "You want more than 150kw? 800v or bust." At this point since the Lightning is only 400v, we don't know if Ford's battery tech is holding them back to a low C rating, or if it's the charging infrastructure.

 

[Seageo]

It'll be interesting to see what the battery cooling system looks like for the F150L. The cells from the MME have vertical plates running between each cell that are bent at a 90 degree angle on the edge of the cell. The cooling plate interfaces with this edge. This should give good, even cooling across the pack since every cell gets cooled.



Tesla has cooling channels running along each module, so there are plenty of cells in the middle of the module that are only cooled by the interface between them and the adjacent cells. Cylindrical cells are more stable than pouch cells though, so Ford is likely playing the safe card here. They don't want a Bolt on their hands (which uses cells almost identical to the MME). Of course comparisons to the MME may be moot since SK may have done a completely different design for the Lightning.

Current DCFC infrastructure outside of Tesla is pretty limited in power when running 400v. The cables just aren't up to the task of running enough amps to push much beyond 150kw @ 400A anyway. Superchargers use liquid cooled cables to address this limitation which is why they can push more amps. It'll be interesting to see if 3rd party chargers go this route or just fold their arms and say to manufacturers, "You want more than 150kw? 800v or bust." At this point since the Lightning is only 400v, we don't know if Ford's battery tech is holding them back to a low C rating, or if it's the charging infrastructure.

CCS chargers are liquid cooled and by standard rated to 500A.

 

[vandy1981]

Current DCFC infrastructure outside of Tesla is pretty limited in power when running 400v. The cables just aren't up to the task of running enough amps to push much beyond 150kw @ 400A anyway. Superchargers use liquid cooled cables to address this limitation which is why they can push more amps. It'll be interesting to see if 3rd party chargers go this route or just fold their arms and say to manufacturers, "You want more than 150kw? 800v or bust." At this point since the Lightning is only 400v, we don't know if Ford's battery tech is holding them back to a low C rating, or if it's the charging infrastructure.

CharIN limits the CCS2 standard to 500 amps at the tap, so the theoretical maximum is 200 kW at 400V. Most of the very fast CCS chargers (including all of the EA chargers) have liquid-cooled cables. The amperage of most of the EA chargers is limited by software or hardware, but as far as we know this isn't because of thermal limitations of the cables.

I agree that 800v is the way to go in the future and fully expect the next gen of the Lightning to have this battery architecture. I assume that it would have been too expensive and supply-limited for Gen1.

 

[Fastmikerx7]

I road tripped for the first time this last Sunday in my Lariat SR.
510 miles.
Saw 163kWh peak at a charger. 155kWh peak at another one.
But, after a bit, truck mostly settled down to between 96-89 kWh until 80% SOC. Then 40kWh after that.

 

[eRock77]

As Seageo mentioned, GM's not putting 800V components in their vehicles at this time. Instead, the battery pack has a connector which changes the voltage from 400 to 800 temporarily for DC fast charging.

A battery series connector is an amazing idea to swap to 800v architecture. Which, by the way, is simple, reliable and effective world war II technology the Ford should also be supplying for us!

 

[NM1]

Interesting. DC charging my extended range battery typically peaks at 177 kw at charging station competitors to Electrify America.

Sponsored