Mercedes Benz Vision EQXX EV

[electricAK]

It seems like the way Mercedes achieved such high range was to cut back drastically on mass and drag. That's all fine and good, but it shows that their battery tech is not driving the gains.

In fact, I would argue that in general, battery technology is not going to improve drastically more than it already has. There has to be a limit of max power density, and I believe Tesla is approaching it. I'm sure some more gains can be squeezed out, but I get the feeling it won't be all that much.

I'm basing that opinion not on any actual knowledge of battery chemistry or technology, but solely on my engineering intuition and knowledge of physics. I may be wrong here, but I can't seem to shake that feeling. Plus, battery costs may come down, but those too can only drop as far as the material costs, which are actually rising.

So, i'm not sure we will ever reach the point where range is 500-600mi in most new EV's. I think range will continue to be a comparison point between lower cost and higher-cost models.

And for those who agree with Elon that nobody needs more than 300mi range, I strongly disagree. People need closer to 500mi EPA, when driving in winter conditions and towing situations.

 

[Tinker71]

More range is nice.

Better handling and more efficiency is nice too. Depends a lot on how much you road trip.

To me range matters a lot less on a road car than the CT.

I am going to guess that the MB will cost $150,000 or more. I previously said I would be fine with 200 HP but for the price spread I would stick with a Tesla S LR. 400 mile plus exhilaration for $100,000 vs $150000? and a nice interior.

 

[Ogre]

I don't even care about volume-manufacturing at this point. I want a box full of solid-state cells to build a lightweight fire-resistant 25kWh battery pack for an "off-road application".

I just care about engineering-quantities.

I haven't found a datasheet for a solid-state battery cell yet, though.

Please, someone make me look like a fool by providing some datasheets for solid-state cells that I can order in engineering quantities!

You may well be able to do that now.

For $1m.

Price is a function of manufacturing volume.

 

[Deleted member 5322]

I don't even care about volume-manufacturing at this point. I want a box full of solid-state cells to build a lightweight fire-resistant 25kWh battery pack for an "off-road application".

I just care about engineering-quantities.

I haven't found a datasheet for a solid-state battery cell yet, though.

Please, someone make me look like a fool by providing some datasheets for solid-state cells that I can order in engineering quantities!

Contact Quantum Scape, they are already building a battery production factory in San Jose, CA. I think they are the one who has some results with Solid State Batteries.
Or contact Solid Power, I've heard that they have some lab results.

 

[Ogre]

So, i'm not sure we will ever reach the point where range is 500-600mi in most new EV's. I think range will continue to be a comparison point between lower cost and higher-cost models.

And for those who agree with Elon that nobody needs more than 300mi range, I strongly disagree. People need closer to 500mi EPA, when driving in winter conditions and towing situations.

As you suggest, range depends largely on what the vehicle is supposed to do. For most EVs, 300 miles is plenty. For a vehicle which may be towing or going into areas further from the major corridors, it's not enough. If you are driving routinely from LA to SF, maybe it's not enough either.

Most cars get driving 50 miles a day and 300 miles is plenty.

Musk may have suggested 300 miles was enough, but he also announced a 500 mile Cybertruck which I think says something.

 

[Crissa]

Bigger battery packs gotta get the power from somewhere, and so you spend more time charging.

So it's always going be better to get that aero down.

-Crissa

 

[Tinker71]

As you suggest, range depends largely on what the vehicle is supposed to do. For most EVs, 300 miles is plenty. For a vehicle which may be towing or going into areas further from the major corridors, it's not enough. If you are driving routinely from LA to SF, maybe it's not enough either.

Most cars get driving 50 miles a day and 300 miles is plenty.

Musk may have suggested 300 miles was enough, but he also announced a 500 mile Cybertruck which I think says something.

300 miles for passenger vehicle is Elon's estimation for the point in which range anxiety for the average consumer is negligible. There will always be out lyers.

More is usually better but not at the expense of cost and weight. Expense with a MB is not as much of a concern. I wonder if MB is projecting some improvement in battery tech like Tesla did.
Gain a 100 miles from extreme efficiency and project another 100 for a ~20% improvement in battery tech from today and you have 620 miles of range.

Their prototype might not get 620 miles now.

 

[braddibbnd]

As you suggest, range depends largely on what the vehicle is supposed to do. For most EVs, 300 miles is plenty. For a vehicle which may be towing or going into areas further from the major corridors, it's not enough. If you are driving routinely from LA to SF, maybe it's not enough either.

Most cars get driving 50 miles a day and 300 miles is plenty.

Musk may have suggested 300 miles was enough, but he also announced a 500 mile Cybertruck which I think says something.

In my earlier post, I did qualify that 300 miles worked for a car. But I'm hoping to be able to afford a CT version that gets 400-500 miles. I don't tow much but having less than 150 miles range with a load would be a pain. Not enough charging stations around my locale for that to work, much less anybody having drive-thru charging stalls.
All engineering is a trade-off and putting a battery that gets 550-700 miles range seems to me like a bad trade off with the weight. Most state registrations base their license costs on weight because more weight means more road wear. MB says the battery will have 50% less volume and 30% less weight than their EQS battery. I'll believe it when I see it. I've not seen where MB is that invested in battery technology but if it's better than Tesla's 4680, I hope Tesla licenses that technology for at least the CT and Semi.
Edit: Or better yet, just buy MB.

 

[Bill906]

In fact, I would argue that in general, battery technology is not going to improve drastically more than it already has.

I’ll take that argument. I consider Energy like data. It has no mass or volume, but the device needed to store it does. As a kid my first computer had a 20Mb Hard drive. If someone showed me a micro SD card and said it could store 1Tb on it back then I‘d have said that was impossible.

About 15 years ago I bought a “Jump box” that had a lead acid battery in it. It was VERY heavy and bulky.

Last year for Christmas my mom bought me a flashlight that was also a “jump box” . Light, compact and it works.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08NQZJ4H5/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_TCZSPDNFF1CJ5SB3S9CM

If someone told me you could put the functionality of a jump box into a flashlight that weight about 2 pounds back when I bought that first jump box 15 years ago, I would not have believe it.

So I guess my point is batteries must get better. Past performance always guarantees future success. Errr? wait…. What was my point again? Oh yeah. Since energy has no mass or volume, there is no fundimental limit. The only thing keeping us from storing more in less is engineering a better storage device.

 

[Quicksilver]

Oh Lord won't you buy me an Electric Benz
My friends all drive Teslas
I must make amends.
Oh Lord won't you buy me an Electric Benz.
(With apologies to Janis Joplin)

 

[electricAK]

I’ll take that argument. I consider Energy like data. It has no mass or volume, but the device needed to store it does. As a kid my first computer had a 20Mb Hard drive. If someone showed me a micro SD card and said it could store 1Tb on it back then I‘d have said that was impossible.

About 15 years ago I bought a “Jump box” that had a lead acid battery in it. It was VERY heavy and bulky.

Last year for Christmas my mom bought me a flashlight that was also a “jump box” . Light, compact and it works.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08NQZJ4H5/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_TCZSPDNFF1CJ5SB3S9CM

If someone told me you could put the functionality of a jump box into a flashlight that weight about 2 pounds back when I bought that first jump box 15 years ago, I would not have believe it.

So I guess my point is batteries must get better. Past performance always guarantees future success. Errr? wait…. What was my point again? Oh yeah. Since energy has no mass or volume, there is no fundimental limit. The only thing keeping us from storing more in less is engineering a better storage device.

You may be right! I hope so. I think the counter arguments would be:

- Energy storage based on ion-movement type batteries depends on the number of ions available, and thus depends directly on available mass.

- For a true step change, we need to get beyond mass-dependent battery types a find a new kind of energy storage that works just as well and is cheap to make. Humanity has been trying to achieve that for 100 years or more, and no luck so far.

- Mass-dependent batteries have huge advantages over the alternatives, so we've put 100years into perfecting and maturing this technology to achieve the form its in now.

Thus, there may be some physical limitations to how good a battery can actually get and still be easy to manufacture, affordable, and effective for a wide range of rigorous uses.