Torn

[SpaceEVDriver]

I really value your input. Especially since you drive both distance and elevation as well as weather. I am learning so much from your posts. Thank you.

I’m happy to help!

 

[Indy]

I wanted to be thorough.

Assuming 55 mph average speed on mountain roads.

Trip out:
It will probably take a total of no more than 5 hours with two stops.

Trip home:
It’ll probably take no more than 5 hours and one stop.

I’m happy to help!

I have been thinking of changing over to BEV and your information is very helpful.......and thorough.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I have been thinking of changing over to BEV and your information is very helpful.......and thorough.

That's awesome!

 

[cyure]

That's awesome!

You are converting lots of us, one educational post at a time.

 

[speedrye]

I think the world will see SSBs in high-end EVs by 2030. They’ll be in other EVs by 2035. If the tariffs and other anti-competition protectionism remains a policy in the US, we in the US won’t see them except for the most expensive EVs until 2040 or so.

Once SSBs hit production, do you anticipate seeing them in EVs or cell phones first? I've always assumed they'd hit cell phones first where the pricing premium for the battery wouldn't be as big of a deal as in EVs.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Once SSBs hit production, do you anticipate seeing them in EVs or cell phones first? I've always assumed they'd hit cell phones first where the pricing premium for the battery wouldn't be as big of a deal as in EVs.

SSBs are in use in very small, high-criticality devices such as pacemakers, other implantable devices, stationary devices in remote places, and in some drones.

Samsung is talking about being first to market with cell phone SSBs. Phones sit in an odd space where they generate high margins compared with many other electronics. I don’t know how much the high cost premium of an SSB is attractive to manufacturers. I also don’t think they want long-lived phones—if replacement schedules are 4 years instead of 2 years, manufacturers cut their profitability almost in half. Most phone use-cases don’t *need* much better batteries. My phone will last two days. I can plop it on a charger a dozen different times a day and it’ll last many days even if I never get it to 100%. Another issue is kind of ridiculous: any battery with a capacity higher than a legally-set limit must be labeled as a “dangerous” product and cannot be brought onto a plane (neither cabin nor cargo). Many cell phone batteries are already bumping up against this limit. Obviously that can be changed, but it hasn’t been...

Watches, on the other hand, might benefit more. Huawei chose to go with Si-C to replace the graphite anode of a typical liquid electrolyte Li battery and have much higher energy density (Wh/L) and higher specific energy (Wh/kg) batteries in production. Their devices are running about 10x longer than other device manufacturers using standard LFP batteries. I have one of their watches. I've been wearing it for three and a half days and it's at 81%. In part it’s because of better software and in part it’s because of better battery tech.

I suspect that there will likely be at least one more liquid electrolyte “revolution” before we get solid state batteries in vehicles.

 

[strider]

Agreed here as well.

I wasn't meaning Doughnut, or other things like that. Just referencing things like Nissan, Mercedes, and other brands that are actually out there testing vehicles, and other brands like QuantumScape, Solid Power, or Factorial Energy, that are already providing sample cells, etc. Plus all the big Chinese brands of course.

I will respectfully disagree. I think the increased chatter is only because you are paying attention to it. I have been reading these exact same stories for over 15 years. Only the names of the companies change. I still believe SSBs have critical stability issues in high vibration environments like a car.

Don't get me wrong, I do hope we eventually crack it (or come up with a different solution) but I have been duped so many times. I am sorry but anyone putting dates around SSBs in vehicles is just guessing.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I will respectfully disagree. I think the increased chatter is only because you are paying attention to it. I have been reading these exact same stories for over 15 years. Only the names of the companies change. I still believe SSBs have critical stability issues in high vibration environments like a car.

Don't get me wrong, I do hope we eventually crack it (or come up with a different solution) but I have been duped so many times. I am sorry but anyone putting dates around SSBs in vehicles is just guessing.

They absolutely have major issues. They have volumetric changes during manufacturing that pulls the solid electrolytes away from the electrodes and renders them unusable. They have major issues with stability. They have major issues in lots of places.

This is one set of reasons that we won't see a small potatoes battery company in the US achieve market first. The major manufacturers in China and Korea are the ones to pay attention to. They have consistently said they won't be able to make market before 2030.

 

[Logan]

I will respectfully disagree. I think the increased chatter is only because you are paying attention to it. I have been reading these exact same stories for over 15 years. Only the names of the companies change. I still believe SSBs have critical stability issues in high vibration environments like a car.

Don't get me wrong, I do hope we eventually crack it (or come up with a different solution) but I have been duped so many times. I am sorry but anyone putting dates around SSBs in vehicles is just guessing.

I hear you there, and no offense taken at all.

I've not been following this for 15 years, but I have been for 6 years or so. And it just seems to me like the rate of discussion, and the relative "seriousness" of the announcements have increased. And that the announcements have changed somewhat. Meaning instead of just "in the lab" announcements, we're seeing later stage test cells being delivered, production facilities ramping, and people testing in actual vehicles.

I did find it interesting that Jamies post today about SSB's seems to indicate that people in the industry actually think they'll be happening as well, with similar-ish timeframes (~2030 at the earliest).

Post in thread 'Will the Scout EREV be obsolete by the time it gets here in 2027/28?'

Wednesday at 12:56 PM

Yeh! Another SSB thread based on AI input. This will be another circle of repeats

Let's play nice...

That video makes a number of assumptions that I won't go into here. We have a lot of seasoned engineers at Scout, and as part of the broader VW Group, we have substantial resources, including further engineering and battery technology. AI can't tell you what is coming and when. AI can only pull data from what already exists and what has been published online (both factual and non-factual). That's why asking AI about Scout doesn't usually work well. AI is pulling data from...

• Jamie@ScoutMotors

• 
• 

Same for Solid State batteries. Solid State batteries won't be in volume production for automotive at a similar cost to existing batteries (NMC, LFP, etc., etc.) until after 2030 at the earliest. That's according to suppliers and engineers working on the technology - not someone guessing or speculating on YouTube.

That said, I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and am influenced by the increased coverage without as much historical context. And either way, first iteration of Scouts is all but guaranteed to not have SSB's. But the next generation seems like they may actually start becoming an option.

 

[J Alynn]

I really value your input. Especially since you drive both distance and elevation as well as weather. I am learning so much from your posts. Thank you.

He’s definitely our chief engineer/rocket scientist/EV guru/etc…. And hope you know how much we appreciate the time you give to all us newb’s

 

[SrfnFly227]

Disclaimer: There are so many variables that go into this that I’d be much more comfortable with knowing more about the specific route, climate/weather/elevation changes/etc during the trip, and what ever other variables you know ahead of time like speed, etc. You can also plug your specifics into the ABRP planner, tell it you’re towing a trailer, and ask it to give you an estimate. Note that ABRP is conservative and sometimes suggests a route isn’t possible when it is easily possible. You have to set your maximum speed because it sometimes assumes something like 90 mph as your maximum...


Assumptions:

• It’s a time of year where the weather is neither terribly hot nor terribly cold;
• You have to climb from, say, 2500 feet to 5000 feet on the way there and there are few, if any, extra valleys;
• You’re on a two-lane mountain road as shown in the photo;
• Winds are minimal;
• Speed limit is 65 mph, but the mountain curves suggest 45-55 are the more responsible speeds;
• Tires are at 51 PSI cold instead of the manufacturer door sticker of 36 PSI. You shouldn’t be towing with the lower pressure the manufacturer suggests, which is at least partly based on passenger comfort and not so much on towing stability and efficiency;

Start with the Lightning at 100%, 320-340 miles on the guessing-meter. You won’t get 320 miles while towing.
Driving at an average of 55 mph, sometimes climbing to 65, sometimes slowing to 45 or even slower when going through a town. Assume an average of 55 mph.

250 miles / 55 mph = 4.5 hours nominal travel time.

I would expect, if you don’t drive wildly, that you could get between 1.5 and 1.8 miles/kWh on the drive to your trailhead. I’ll assume it’s 1.5 miles/kWh. I’ve gotten as bad as 1.1 when I was racing a storm while towing a tractor and I went 75 mph up from ~4000 feet elevation to 7200 feet elevation over 50 miles. I can get worse if I try. I can get worse if the winds are bad or if there’s particularly bad weather.

These legs are made-up, based on first-leg number of hours I’d want to sit.

• Leg 1: 138 miles; 2.5 hours
  • I wouldn’t drive for more than 2.5 hours myself because I don’t like to sit too long.
  • Start at 100%
  • Average speed of 55 mph for 2.5 hours = 138 miles.
  • 138 miles at 1.5 miles/kWh = 92 kWh.
  • 92 kWh of 131 kWh = 70%.
  • Truck is at 30% state of charge when you stop.
  • Charge to 85%; On the Lightning 30% to 85% would take about 20-25 minutes.
  • Total leg time: 2.83 hours
• Leg 2: 82 miles; 1.5 hours
  • Stop at the charger that's 30 miles from your destination; 82 miles from your previous charger.
  • 82 miles / 1.5 miles/kWh = 55 kWh, or 42% used.
  • From 85% to 42% = 43% remaining.
  • Charge to 85%, which should take about 15 minutes.
  • Total leg time: 1.75 hours
• Leg 3: 30 miles; 33 minutes
  • 30 miles / 1.5 miles/kWh = 20 kWh.
  • 20 kWh = 15% of the battery.
  • 85-15=70%
  • Total leg time: 0.5 hours
  • I would be carrying a solar system with a battery that can build up enough charge to charge the truck about 10-14 kWh per day. But let’s assume you don’t carry any solar.
• Total travel time: About 5 hours.

Going home, you might be able to get 2.0-2.2 miles/kWh home, but estimate 1.8 miles/kWh.

• Leg 1: 125 miles; 2.3 hours.
  • Starting with 70% state of charge.
  • Assume your first preferred homeward charger is 125 miles from the campsite.
  • To go 125 miles, you would use about 53%, bringing you down to 17%.
  • Charge to 65%. About 15-20 minutes.
  • I would charge to 60% to save money, but I know some people aren’t comfortable with that.
  • If you charge to 80%, it’ll add another 5-10 minutes.
  • Total leg time: 2.6 hours
• Leg 2: 125 miles, 2.3 hours.
  • Starting with 65% state of charge
  • Use 53%
  • Arrive at home with 12%
  • Put the truck on the Level 2 charger and be ready for work the next morning.
• Total travel time: About 5 hours (remember, you started at lower state of charge so your better efficiency didn’t save you total trip time, just saved money on the return trip).

Note: You don’t have to make the second stop on your way to the trailhead. You could skip it and arrive at the trailhead with about 28%. But then you probably want to stop at the first charger on your way home, and that’s only 30 miles from the trailhead. I’d probably stop on the way out and skip it on the way home.

If you get worse efficiency, it just changes how long your three charging stops are. Worst case, it might add about 10 minutes to each. Your total trip might be 10.5 hours instead of 10 hours.

Again, this is all guesswork without knowing more. What I will say is that I’ve never hesitated to tow across the US Southwest in the middle of summer with AC running.

Thank you for this. You never cease to amaze me with the time you put in to your posts. That's really similar to what I had planned out in my head. The spot I usually camp/wheel is near Arrington, VA. I plugged it in to ABRP and it's in the middle of a hole when it comes to chargers. Other spots may be closer to chargers, but are also longer drives. That's what originally drew me to the Harvester. I've come to accept that some extra stops once or twice a year would be worth it over the complexity of the EREV year round.