Regenerative Braking Capacity

Hmp10

Well-Known Member
Depending on how hard you brake and how much city driving you do, regenerative braking can increase your range significantly. We are talking 50% more range or even more than without regen.
Which is why in an earlier post I wrote, "it's true that regenerative braking doesn't put much energy back into the battery pack during a lot of driving, but it becomes more significant in heavy city driving."

Most of my driving is on uncongested highways, so I get little range enhancement from regenerative braking, as I simply don't brake or slow down much relative to miles driven. I understand that if I did more city driving I would see considerably more energy recovery.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
The C rating of a battery is actually it's capacity in coulombs divided by 3600 in order to convert the units to the more convenient ampere-hours (1 ampere-second = 1 coulomb). When we say we are going to discharge (or charge) a battery at, for example, 0.8C that means we are going to charge it with cuirrent numerically equal to 0.8*C. For example, the battery in some Tesla's is rated 100kWh and as the battery voltage is about 385 V and stays pretty level over the discharge cycle that's equivalent to 100000/385 =259.7 ampere hours. Charging (or discharging) this battery at 0.8 C means 0.8*259*7 = 207.8 amperes. Multiplying by the 385 volts that given 0.8*100 = 80 kW. Clearly it is going to take 1/0.8 = 1.25 hours to discharge it at that rate. Given that the power meter on these cars goes up to 300 kW we assume these batteries can be discharged at up to 3C and perhaps a bit beyond this. That's 300kW equal to 407.8 HP. Given that the new (V3) chargers will charge at (IIRC) 350 kW that implies that they can be charged at 3.5C (at least at low SoC).

Another interesting question here is as to what HP means when quoted by an EV manufacturer. Is it derived from a modified SAE J1349 test? Is it with the inverter duty cycle 100% at the speed which produces the most power or is it at some limit set by the manufacturer in order to optimize performance and reliability under some set of weights they have chosen. Too little info here. So not only do I not know what it really means when they say that motor power is reduced from 754 to 700 HP but I don't really have any good understanding as to why they would do that. I can see why they might want to lower the available peak draw from 3.5C to 3.2C if there is a problem, as I suggested earlier, with getting heat out of the larger pack but most of the time the vehicle will, judging by the Tesla story, be operated at about 0.1C - 0.2C.
 
Last edited:

CappyJax

Well-Known Member
The C rating of a battery is actually it's capacity in coulombs divided by 3600 in order to convert the units to the more convenient ampere-hours (1 ampere-second = 1 coulomb). When we say we are going to discharge (or charge) a battery at, for example, 0.8C that means we are going to charge it with cuirrent numerically equal to 0.8*C. For example, the battery in some Tesla's is rated 100kWh and as the battery voltage is about 385 V and stays pretty level over the discharge cycle that's equivalent to 100000/385 =259.7 ampere hours. Charging (or discharging) this battery at 0.8 C means 0.8*259*7 = 207.8 amperes. Multiplying by the 385 volts that given 0.8*100 = 80 kW. Clearly it is going to take 1/0.8 = 1.25 hours to discharge it at that rate. Given that the power meter on these cars goes up to 300 kW we assume these batteries can be discharged at up to 3C and perhaps a bit beyond this. That's 300kW equal to 407.8 HP. Given that the new (V3) chargers will charge at (IIRC) 350 kW that implies that they can be charged at 3.5C (at least at low SoC).

Another interesting question here is as to what HP means when quoted by an EV manufacturer. Is it derived from a modified SAE J1349 test? Is it with the inverter duty cycle 1005 at the speed which produces the most power or is it at some limit set by the manufacturer in order to optimize performance and reliability under some set of weights they have chosen. Too little info here. So not only do I not know what it really means when they say that motor power is reduced from 754 to 700 HP but I don't really have any good understanding as to why they would do that. I can see why they might want to lower the available peak draw from 3.5C to 3.2C if there is a problem, as I suggested earlier, with getting heat out of the larger pack but most of the time the vehicle will, judging by the Tesla story, be operated at about 0.1C - 0.2C.

A larger pack will produce less heat at the same power draw than a smaller pack. That is because each cell is delivering less of the same share to the draw.

The V3 chargers are currently at only 250kW. To get higher charging rates, the battery packs will likely need to be in the 800V range to get the amperage down.
 

CappyJax

Well-Known Member
Which is why in an earlier post I wrote, "it's true that regenerative braking doesn't put much energy back into the battery pack during a lot of driving, but it becomes more significant in heavy city driving."

Most of my driving is on uncongested highways, so I get little range enhancement from regenerative braking, as I simply don't brake or slow down much relative to miles driven. I understand that if I did more city driving I would see considerably more energy recovery.
Do you have any hills where you live?
 

cllc

Member
Sorry, but I can't figure out what you are trying to say. We want the car to use all its energy store (battery or gasoline) to get us from one place to another. Cars are not 100% efficient so some of the stored energy will be lost however clever we are. We can do various things to minimize some of those parasitic energy drains such as slow down (minimizes drag and rolling loss), inflate tires properly (rolling loss), and use motor designs that minimize hysteresis and eddy current loss. Given that we have a car that is designed the way it is there is one thing we can do to eliminate energy loss and that is to keep our feet off the pedals to the extent possible. Whenever we touch the brake pedal we are wasting energy. Sometimes there are things we can do about that. For example if we know we must stop at the top of a hill we can take our foot off the "gas" at the point where the kinetic energy of the car is just equal to the potential energy difference between the desired stop point and the current location plus the energy that will go to overcome drag and rolling resistance. If we do this then we will decelerate up to the desired stopping point without having to touch the brake and will, thus, recover a portion of the energy we invested in getting the car rolling in the first place. This works nicely if we always stop at the top of a hill (in fact it was evidently built into the London subway system). But if we must stop at the bottom of Lombard street it doesn't work so well. We will have to hit the brake and in so doing waste the kinetic energy of the car and the potential energy as well. It will go off as heat and (in an automobile) we can't recover it. If we are rolling down the freeway at a healthy clip and some idiot pulls out in front of us we haven't much choice but to hit the brake and waste some of the energy we invested in getting the car up to cruising speed. I used, when gas was over $3 a gallon, instruct my wife to keep her feet off the pedals and apparently her father had also told her that when teaching her to drive. One thing is clear. Any time you touch the brake, money flies out the window. A hypermiler knows this and operates his car with minimum application of the brakes and, thus, presumably, saves money. But even he will have to apply them sometimes (when he must stop at the bottom of a hill, when he gets cut off on the freeway...). What regenerative braking does is allow us to slow down when we have to without using the brakes. The energy that would have gone to heat the brake drums is converted to electricity (and in the process some is lost as heat to hysteresis in an IM configuration but not with a PMSRM and some to warming FETs) and put back into the battery. When we roll down Lombard street we retain a substantial proportion of the kinnetic energy of the car and the potential energy of that hill as well.

I don't see any trade-offs here. If you are suggesting reducing hysteresis instead of using regenerative braking I think that would be a bad trade as the obvious thing to do is have the benefits of both and that is the approach Tesla has taken with the adoption of the SRM. losses is, of course, a good thing to do and Tesla, and others I believe, have gone that route with the SRM approach



Again I'm afraid I can't decode this. The battery in my car weighs more that 1000 pounds but all my ice cars weigh more than that. And it takes just as much force to stop a car with regen as without. The difference is that the torque is absorbed by the motor rather than a brake disc.
 

cllc

Member
My point is that I would much rather utilize the regenerative braking than to not have it than to put all that heat back into the brake pads and rotors.An average ICE vehicles motor and fuel gas tank doesn't weigh near as much as just the battery on your EV car, The ICE car gets lighter as you drive ,stopping your ice car is easier and takes less energy than stopping your EV without the Regen braking over time and that adds up.I don't think we are disagree here.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
A larger pack will produce less heat at the same power draw than a smaller pack. That is because each cell is delivering less of the same share to the draw.
It's not because each of the cells delivers a smaller share (there are twice as many cells in a battery twice the size of a reference battery) but because the current per cell is half when the same power is drawn. Assuming all or most of the heat loss is i^2R loss then each cell gives off 1/4 the heat and as there are twice as many of them thermal losses are half what they would be. Example: you have a single cell fully charged to 2.4 V and discharge it at a 1 ampere rate (2.4 W). It has an internal resistance of 10 mΩ. The heat dissipated is 10 mW. To increase the duration your device can operate you add a second cell in parallel but continue to take 2.4W. Half an ampere is drawn from each cell so the power dissipated in each is 0.5*0.5*10 = 2.5 mW. As there are two cells the total dissipation is twice this: 5 mW.

The V3 chargers are currently at only 250kW.
Yes, that's correct.


To get higher charging rates, the battery packs will likely need to be in the 800V range to get the amperage down.
To be clear on this: You do want to get the voltage from the stall up in order to reduce the current in the cable and connector and indeed the internals of the stall itself but you do not want to reduce amperage to the battery cells as the length of time to charge is inversely proportional to that. Manufacturers are exploring higher voltage batteries. I think Rivian may be one of them.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
My point is that I would much rather utilize the regenerative braking than to not have it than to put all that heat back into the brake pads and rotors.An average ICE vehicles motor and fuel gas tank doesn't weigh near as much as just the battery on your EV car, The ICE car gets lighter as you drive ,stopping your ice car is easier and takes less energy than stopping your EV without the Regen braking over time and that adds up.I don't think we are disagree here.
I think you are saying that having regen is better than not having it. That's certainly true. And I think you are saying that it is especially valuable in a heavier vehicle as a heavy vehicle puts more demand on its braking system. Also true.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
I appreciate the Greek that is being thrown around.....but what has happened to this thread...??? My God.
The OP asked for experience or expertise WRT regenerative braking. I can't really claim the latter but I experience regen every time I drive the car. Note that this thread is titled "Tech: Batteries..." Thus readers should expect to encounter some technical terms. It wouldn't help the OP if someone posted "Ah, regenerative braking. It's FM".
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
If you live in a flat place there is no need for regenerative braking or, indeed, any other kind. The car will slow down from drag and rolling resistance if no power is supplied to the wheels. All you have to do is take your foot off the accelerator at a point at the appropriate distance from where you wish to stop and the car will smoothly decelerate to 0 speed at that spot. Unless you have a tail wind...
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
When gas was over $3 lots of drivers engaged in "hypermileing" the fundamental part of which is keeping one's feet off the pedals. This implies gradual coasting up to stop signs and lights as well as minimal acceleration when departing same. This did indeed lead to a fair amount of grumbling from other drivers.
 

jimcgov3

Well-Known Member
The OP asked for experience or expertise WRT regenerative braking. I can't really claim the latter but I experience regen every time I drive the car. Note that this thread is titled "Tech: Batteries..." Thus readers should expect to encounter some technical terms. It wouldn't help the OP if someone posted "Ah, regenerative braking. It's FM".
I see that humorous posts are also discouraged. If you would be so kind as to point me to a YouTube video or a website that explains the math side of this, I would greatly appreciate it. I will continue with the witty banter though...No point in being serious all the time.
 
Top