I thought so. It’s a news article so long but not a novel.Is it worth the read?
I thought so. It’s a news article so long but not a novel.Is it worth the read?
IMO, it is.Is it worth the read?
That’s interesting-didn’t know they had that commitment
I fear for the driver of that vehicle in a crash.I’d love to see them succeed, but I get more skeptical every year. It’s probably not a vehicle for me, but I’d love to see them on the road.
Maybe slightly better than all the other three wheel vehicles on the road, not to mention two wheel vehicles.I fear for the driver of that vehicle in a crash.
I know it says there are no cars that can use the 600kW charging in the US as of now, obviously it's still good to future proof. My question that I don't know the answer to, is if you have 600kW chargers like this that for the time being will never max out, will that help with reliability versus a say 250kW charger that might be maxed out every day by certain cars or would that not matter?I like reading stuff like this.
I'm not an expert in this but I have helped test new charging stations coming online and have spoken with the electricians and engineers at those sites about how it all works.I know it says there are no cars that can use the 600kW charging in the US as of now, obviously it's still good to future proof. My question that I don't know the answer to, is if you have 600kW chargers like this that for the time being will never max out, will that help with reliability versus a say 250kW charger that might be maxed out every day by certain cars or would that not matter?
Thanks for your insight. Love learning all this new stuff about EVs.I'm not an expert in this but I have helped test new charging stations coming online and have spoken with the electricians and engineers at those sites about how it all works.
Essentially no, that would not really help with reliability and would likely just make everything more expensive and difficult (getting the grid connection would become even harder than it is currently).
The way most modern chargers seem to work is they have rack-mounted modules that handle the AC-DC conversion and that for a 180KW charger for example, they'll use three 60 kW modules. That means if one of the modules dies for whatever reason the charger can still deliver 120 KW (180 - 60). I've seen this happen in real life and the charger just de-rates to 120 KW instead of failing completely.
To add more 'speed' they just add more modules to a given charging post. So while going up to 600KW would mean that they would have 10 modules (60 kW x 10), it won't necessarily increase reliability. Yes there are more modules so there will be more redundancy that way so it's less likely to go offline completely (because it would take a lot to go through all 10 modules) but realistically there are more modules to fail too so it it could just always be de-rated.
The main issue with improving reliability is that a lot of companies get subsidies for building out the infrastructure but don't get money to actually maintain it. So they get funding to build out a bunch of chargers but then can't afford to keep them online for whatever reason. Unreliability isn't necessarily a technology issue, it's a corporate management and culture issue. If spare parts are always on hand and the required crews are nearby there's no reason for a charging network to be unreliable. Whether they're 50kW or 600KW chargers almost doesn't matter if the company running them isn't maintaining them properly.
Loved the Bollinger. This I don’t care for. Not sure why but some of the proportions are just off visually. But it looks like a proper English off road gentleman’s SUVMunro M280 review: ugly, utilitarian... and utterly lovely
Scottish EV. Similar in spirit to the failed Bollinger EV.
I believe the new ChargePoints are going to be a slightly different design (larger individual modules, fewer modules to get to 600 kW). But overall this, as described, is one of the biggest issues with reliability.I'm not an expert in this but I have helped test new charging stations coming online and have spoken with the electricians and engineers at those sites about how it all works.
Essentially no, that would not really help with reliability and would likely just make everything more expensive and difficult (getting the grid connection would become even harder than it is currently).
The way most modern chargers seem to work is they have rack-mounted modules that handle the AC-DC conversion and that for a 180KW charger for example, they'll use three 60 kW modules. That means if one of the modules dies for whatever reason the charger can still deliver 120 KW (180 - 60). I've seen this happen in real life and the charger just de-rates to 120 KW instead of failing completely.
To add more 'speed' they just add more modules to a given charging post. So while going up to 600KW would mean that they would have 10 modules (60 kW x 10), it won't necessarily increase reliability. Yes there are more modules so there will be more redundancy that way so it's less likely to go offline completely (because it would take a lot to go through all 10 modules) but realistically there are more modules to fail too so it it could just always be de-rated.
The main issue with improving reliability is that a lot of companies get subsidies for building out the infrastructure but don't get money to actually maintain it. So they get funding to build out a bunch of chargers but then can't afford to keep them online for whatever reason. Unreliability isn't necessarily a technology issue, it's a corporate management and culture issue. If spare parts are always on hand and the required crews are nearby there's no reason for a charging network to be unreliable. Whether they're 50kW or 600KW chargers almost doesn't matter if the company running them isn't maintaining them properly.
Another reason I do t like autonomous![]()
'They can't see under the water': Waymo vehicles back on the road after many became stuck in Arizona floodwaters
Waymo temporarily paused operations on the autonomous vehicles in the Valley on Friday during a storm after several vehicles were seen stopped in standing water.www.12news.com
“These cars really haven't had enough time to be trained on how to manage flooding that happened as fast as this did," Maynard said. "We like to think of them as sort of being the equivalent of human drivers. But they're not. People are trained to adapt to very unique situations. These cars are trained to deal with what they know.
And of course, when you're presented with a flooded road, the sensors on these cars simply cannot tell whether that's just surface rain or whether it's three feet deep. So of course, they're going to be confused. They can't see under the water.”
Humans aren't any better when it comes to driving through high water. Back when I lived in Texas, anytime there were heavy rains you'd see or hear about people getting stranded from driving through high water. Actually had a family member in Texas do this very thing and he was a very intelligent person. It's gotten so bad they actually have official ad campaigns for it.Another reason I do t like autonomous