- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
Also interesting to note is that 11/13 of the fastest cars are 800V.
You must log in or register to comment.
I actually like their test methodology, but Edmunds testing like 2-3 variants of every Hyundai, Kia, and Porsche model really pushes all the other cars down a lot further, but I would say:
- Top 6 (600+ mph) - next level… just Ioniq 5/6, EV6, Taycan
- 7-19 (~500+ mph) - excellent… still road trip beasts
- 20-28 (~400+ mph) - decent
- 29-40 (~300+ mph) - minimum acceptable for road trips
- 41-43 (under 300 mph) - awful… never road trip these
I think that the F150 ends up doing better in the edmunds test despite charging at lower kW because the area under its charge curve is similar to Rivian:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40908829/rivian-r1t-fast-charging-over-the-air-update/
And it is more efficient on a miles per kW basis at 48 kWh/100 mi vs the R1T at 52 kWh/100 mi. But Rivian recently released their dual motor design which is now the most efficient truck & large SUV at 43 kWh/100 mi. Edmunds just tested the older 4 motor vehicle.
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46327&id=46312&id=47000&id=46996
I’d actually prefer to see a mikes per hr figure here to take efficiency into account
actually reads article
Hyundai Ioniq 6 Limited RWD tops the list with an impressive 868 miles per charging hour
Well holy shit there it is. This is actually a fantastic article. It breaks down everything in so many ways. It has several surprising facets. Pretty crazy how terrible the rivian fair is here and how well the Kia/Hyundai models do. I also wonder why the F1 50 does about the same as a machE.
I’m not sure if I missed it but I also don’t see how they get to how they measure a charging hour. If they are going from 10% to 80% and many vehicles are doing that in far less time, are they just using the average charging speed in miles given from 10% to 80% and multiplying that to get whatever an hour is?
Help me understand what I’m looking at because I just can’t understand the numbers. I’m using the Model 3 Long Range AWD since I know EXACTLY how this car charges. From their results:
- Miles per charging hour: 569 mi/hr
- Add 100 Miles: 10 min 33 sec
- Consumption: 23.9 kWh/100 mi = 4.18 miles/kWh
- Max Manufacture Speed: 250 kW
- Actual Max Speed: 251 kW
- Average Charging Power: 136 kW
- Charging Losses: 0.9%
No way a Model 3 Long Range averaged 136kW adding 100 miles of range unless they started at 50%+ SOC.
First, putting the consumption in kWh/100 miles has to be one of the more annoying metrics. This is 4.18 miles/kWh which is a lot easier to match with. So 569 miles/hr is divided by the consumption is 136kW which is what they list for the Average Charging Power. If they added 100 miles in 10.5 minutes that is also 136kW average charging speed over that 10 minutes. They said the max speed they saw was 251kW which in 10.5 minutes would add 183 miles of range. Adding 100 miles of range from 10% would only require and ending SOC of 41%.
The Model 3 Long Range charges VERY fast to 41%. It holds 250kW until about 25% and is still just above 200kW at 40%. There should be no way it averaged 136kW charging to 41% SOC. They must have done it on a cold day with no preconditioning or something. You can add 180 miles in around 15 minutes when the battery is preconditioned. These numbers are super suspect.
What am I missing?
Adding 100 miles of range from 10% would only require and ending SOC of 41%.
In the Out of Spec 10% challenges posted to YouTube, the Model Y LR (same battery as Model 3 LR), charged from 10% to 59% in 15 minutes in optimal conditions, meaning 10% to 41% in 10 minutes that Edmunds measured sounds about right.
You missed the entire point of me calling this testing pointless. I was using those numbers to basically prove that while they are ranking the vehicles based on how long it would take them to add 100 miles, they are using the average speed to charge from 10% to 80% and then backing into the calculation of adding 100 miles.
I owned a Tesla, I can assure you I can get to 65% in under 15 minutes in the car. When I had to replace it, I didn’t get a Model Y because it chargers slower than I want.
I think you missed reading the article
If you read my post, I’m open to that but can you explain?
I’m not sure if I missed it but I also don’t see how they get to how they measure a charging hour. If they are going from 10% to 80% and many vehicles are doing that in far less time, are they just using the average charging speed in miles given from 10% to 80% and multiplying that to get whatever an hour is?
This is why miles per charging hour isn’t a particularly useful metric, since the rate of charge isn’t consistent across a full battery. If you charge from 10-80, drain it and charge 10-80 again and keep doing that until you have an hour of total charge time you’ll get a different number than if you did 50-80 or 10-40 or whatever else.
I think the Out of Spec 10% charge test is the way to go with testing this kind of thing. Start at 10%, charge for 15 minutes and see how many miles you can go before you’re back down to 10%. Seems like a more representative example of how people actually use fast charging in real world scenarios on road trips etc.
I kinda like OOS test as well but realistically I am going to charge for how long my car tells me is best so that should also be a test case on top of what OOS and Edmunds are doing.
I am going to charge for how long my car tells me is best
How is that different than charging for 15 minutes?
It looks like they use 10-80 and then normalize to the 100 mile figure. Giving only 15 min of charge rewards the cars who have a fast charge for a portion of the curve, particularly early on. This may be why ford does well, they allow much faster charging for a short time. Whereas an Audi etron has a nearly flat curve. Based on max charge rate it looks middle of the pack, but few can match it for 10-80.
The title is a little misleading. The test ranking is not just about charging rates but also energy use at Highway speeds. Cars with the fastest charging and lowest energy use — aerodynamics plays a big role here — did the best.
That’s not misleading why would the average customer care about charging rates? Range gained per minute is the charging speed most customers will care about.
Because when I state something charges faster than something else, I’m talking about energy delivered over time. I get what you’re saying, but they could have done a much more clear title.
As somebody who owns a HI5, it’s great to see such high outcomes for the platform, BUT I’ve also only ever had 2-3 experiences w EA where I’ve been able to charge at its highest rate…
Luckily, I charge 99% at home w our L2, so not a big deal, but the American network of charging still needs a lot of help to make all this matter…
Miles per hour of charging doesn’t seem very indicative of roadtrip pace (sitting for hours is really the slowest way to travel). Seems like it would tell you which vehicle has a flatter charging curve but that doesn’t necessarily correlate to great 15min top-ups. It’ll be nice when publications like Edmund’s actually have experience with EVs, they might start using something like the Out Of Spec 10% challenge .
Looks like they measure time to charge to 100 miles of range based on their average tested consumption, which is 6.9 minutes for Ioniq 6 RWD, and then multiply 100 * (60 / 6.9) = 869 mph. I think it’s actually a decent way to measure it.
Wheres my bz4x
Now good luck finding chargers beyond 50kwh.
Seriously, these brands need to invest way more in bolstering charging infrastructure. I know it’s happening and yes it’s getting better, but it’s still too slow for my liking.
The results are complete BS.
They don’t list the cars by how long it takes to charge it. In fact they dismiss the usefulness of 10-80% charge times, only to come up with a nonsensical surrogate.
The surrogate is only based on peak charge performance.
What they did:
How long does it take to charge the kWh needed to drive 100miles from a low SoC?
Now divide 1 hour by this charge time. You get a distance.
This distance represents: charging 1 hour at optimal/peak charge speed, how many miles would you charge?
The “errors”:
Energy needed to drive 100miles is from their own measurements under wildly varying weather conditions.
No car can charge at peak power for 1 hour.
Want a real comparison with these parameters? Don’t use peak charging performance, use 10-80 times (average charge performance) & consumption obtained at comparable weather conditions.
From the article about the miles per hour of charge rate:
The calculation for miles per charging hour is carried out by dividing the average charging power (in kilowatts) by the Edmunds tested consumption figure
I am surprised that the 900V Lucid is so far down. Is it a throttling problem due to heat? I know that has been a problem for Rivian.
Drove one in the middle of the summer in AZ. The car couldn’t keep up with the heat. First few minutes were great getting over 300kW. Then it tanked down to below 100kW. Maybe in a temperate climate it’d be better.
Lucid charge curve alone isn’t actually that good
For example, in terms of C rate, a Model S charges faster than it, Taycan and similar much more
It’s just that it’s efficient and has a huge pack
Take a look at the C rate chart here, in terms of pushing cells, Model S/X push them harder
https://insideevs.com/news/555634/lucid-air-fast-charging-analysis/amp/
It really falls off fast from the peak KW
The 10 - 80% charge time for Lucid is around 32 minutes so not extremely quick just state of the art. They use of the shelve Samsung 21700s so that’s not surprising. 900V doesn’t make the cells charge quicker it just helps with amperage for the charger, cables, busbars and connectors.
Forgive my relative ignorance here but doesn’t lucid use a fair few more cells to get the high range numbers for their cars? So wouldn’t they just have MORE cells to charge? Wouldn’t that make sense that they have a longer charge time going by percentage?
If they were limited by the charger (which they are not here) then yes it would take longer to go from 10 - 80 %. If that’s not the case then on the cell level it’s the same as the competition as you can see here.
In theory their large number of cells should help them on a range gained per minute basis but the mediocre cells and the methodology employed here seems to negate that.
No Lucid doesn’t advertise on Edmunds.