Inside Electrify America’s plan to simplify electric car charging

Discussion in 'Tech: Batteries, Charging, Alternative Energy' started by EyeOnRivian, May 6, 2019.

  1. EyeOnRivian

    EyeOnRivian Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    Mitsubishi Endeavor, pre-ordered R1S but may change to R1T
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    97
    When you said "Rivian will only accept 50A at 240" I had taken that as a 50 amp circuit where only 40 amp is usable, hence the different calculation. At any rate, yes, 48 amp (60 amp breaker) at 240v would be the most you would need with a Rivian to approach that 11 kW on-board charger.

    But why limit your EVSE to the specs of a Rivian? I would think anyone investing in an EVSE would not just size it to a Rivian, or at least at its current spec, but instead get one powerful enough to be effective for that future replacement or second EV that probably will have a more powerful on-board charger. (This assumes the person has already calculated the need for the most powerful home EVSE charger, say, due to driving many miles in a day.) I was under the impression the EV software and/or on-board charger will only draw what it needs / can handle. I could be way off base here as a yet-to-be-EV-owner and trying to soak up all I can to help determine which kind / size of EVSE to get while also future proofing (to a degree) my set up to get the most out of that investment.
     
  2. ajdelange

    ajdelange Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    A. J.
    Vehicles:
    Tesla X 100D 2018
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Location:
    Virginia/Quebec
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    19
    #82 ajdelange, Aug 27, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
    It's difficult to answer your question because you don't know what the future holds with respect to how many of what type of EV you may buy in the future nor what the charging characteristics of those vehicles may be. The trend seems to be towards faster charging but that cannot be pulled off without resorting to industrial sized equipment using high voltage DC. At the same time the trend in home charging seems to be to limit to a 60 A circuit. The Tesla S could, with a dual charger option, charge at an 80 A rate at one time and the X at a 72 A rate. Both of those are now limited to 48 A (a 60 A circuit). And I'm not sure that bigger batteries are going to be the trend until kW per kg ratings go up quite a bit. I guess the roadster will have a 200 kW battery and of course the Rivians will have 160 but I don't think the trend to batteries of that size across the EV fleet is coming any time soon. Another big factor is where you are in your housing situation. If you are sitting down with your architect planning a new house then the answer is fairly simple. Pull multiple 100 A circuits to several spots in your garage. Then fill them in later with whatever chargers work with the vehicles you buy as you buy them. If you are in an old house with 125 A service then your situation is very different. You are quite limited as to what you can do. Then there may be other factors to consider. As an example I just installed solar. In Virginia this gives the utility the right to charge me not only for the amount of power I buy from them but for my monthly peak demand. I don't want to ever charge more than one vehicle at a time and I don't want to charge it at the maximum rate it will take as that not only raises my bill but takes away my ability to brag that my car(s) are fueled by the sun.

    As to the mechanism of charging I assume the Tesla is typical. When a charger is plugged in handshaking between vehicle and EVSE takes place in which the vehicle tells the EVSE how much it wants and the EVSE tells the vehicle how much it can have. The vehicles charging circuits then regulate the draw to the lesser of those two numbers. How much the vehicle wants is set by the user and is, of course, limited by the vehicle's charging equipment. For example, if I plug in my Model X in VA where I have an HPWC on a 100 A circuit the car will tell the HPWC it wants 72 A and the EVSE will tell the car it can have up to 80 so the car will draw 72. If I drive up to QC and plug in here where I have a corded HPWC plugged into an outlet on a 50 A circuit the car will ask for 72 and the EVSE will tell it that it can only have 40 so it will draw 40. If, for whatever reason, I set the car's charging screen to a maximum rate of 20 A it would, at either location, draw only 20 A.

    In trying to figure out what to do the most important parameter is the Wh/mi figure for the vehicle. If you need to add 100 miles during each evening's charge session then multiply that by the Wh/mi number (e.g 300*100 = 30 kWh) to get the power you must add to the battery. Then divide by the charge rate (power) of the EVSE. In this example if the EVSE delivers 10 kW then 300*100/10000 = 3 hrs. As the chargers are going to be about 80% efficient you should multiply by 1.125 to get 3.375 hrs. Now that's a reasonable length of time and a 10 kW charger is more than adequate. The Rivian consumption is going to be more like 450 Wh/mi so you would have 450*100/10000 = 4.5 hrs. or a little over 5 hrs with the efficiency taken into account. That's still not bad for an overnight charge. If you needed to add 200 miles you could do that in 10 hrs. Etc.
     
  3. jimcgov3

    jimcgov3 Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    Jimmy
    Vehicles:
    2016 Chevy Spark EV, Rivian R1T Reservation Holder
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2019
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    86
    To answer your first question, I have the WattZilla WallWattz 48. It is $50 cheaper than the ClipperCreek at $849 and doesn't look cheaply made like the CC HCS-60. The Wall Wattz has a sturdy stainless steel housing and 25' of cable with a 6' lead with a NEMA 14-60R plug. There is a simple LCD display with 4 different data points: Status of Charging, Level of Charge, Current Charging Session, and Elapsed Time. It has no smarts, which is ok, as I assume the Rivian app will have all the smarts that I need.

    www.wattzilla.com
     
  4. ajdelange

    ajdelange Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    A. J.
    Vehicles:
    Tesla X 100D 2018
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Location:
    Virginia/Quebec
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    19
    #84 ajdelange, Aug 28, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2019
    I just found another EVSE that will charge the Rivian to the max it can accept. That's the Tesla HPWC. Some enterprising bloke has come up with a Telsa to J1772 adapter that will carry 48 (actually 50) Amps. The product is called a Telsa Tap and is available from Amazon. The only thing that I am a little uncertain about is the way the UL/CE certification statement is worded. It looks as if the components, or some of them, are UL/CE but not the device as a whole. Thus a Tesla owner (or even someone who owns no Teslas) could install a pair (or more) Tesla HPWCs and charge a combination of Rivian, Tesla, Hyundai... vehicles at once with the master HPWC doling out the available current. Whether I charge with one of these at home or not I expect I'll want one in the Rivian's kit as there are a fair number of Tesla destination chargers out there. Note that it does NOT work with super chargers. It is an AC only device.
     
    skyote likes this.
  5. Mjhirsch78

    Mjhirsch78 New Member

    First Name:
    Matt
    Vehicles:
    Honda Odyssey will become an RT1
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2019
    Location:
    Washington
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Preface: I’m an optimist.

    This conversation is all built on guesses right now. It is all we can do right now.

    1. Rivian specifically said they under-promise and over-deliver. Tesla’s semis rated at 500 miles are getting 600 at full load. Do we believe that Rivian is not aware of how much cooler claiming 400 miles and then delivering 450 or 500 miles could be for them? Do we not wonder if that 400 miles is assuming some sort of towing or heavy load happening, allowing for more when not towing/hauling?

    2. A truck is simply not going to be as aerodynamic as a car. It is a different use case. It will likely never compare favorably to a well-designed SUV.

    3. As a teacher, I drive short range during the week and then hit up mountains during the weekend maybe twice a month in the winter. All of these are within the 400 miles to get there and back. The trips we would take a trailer are going to end at campsites with plug-ins. This will be slow but should be enough to get us home at the end of the weekend. Once summer hits, the family does local trips every two or three days. Then maybe twice a summer we take a longer trip. This trip, based on CURRENT chargers, would take me 1800 miles from the PNW to Wisconsin simply planning to stop for two hotel stays. Yes, it will take longer. No, this doesn’t bother me. The only hitch is Montana may be rough right now. However, in 2 years, it would seem strange that no charging company would see this opportunity. In short, this vehicle does everything a guy like me needs.

    I guess what I am getting at is that this whole thing feels like a non-issue for the average family and a real problem for a small subset. If Rivian is as smart as they appear, it seems like they will find ways to tackle this (some already mentioned in this thread). And for some of you, maybe this will just not work for another 5-10 years of tech advancement.
     
    EyeOnRivian and skyote like this.
  6. Hmp10

    Hmp10 Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2019
    Location:
    Naples, FL
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    137
    In April 2019 Motortrend took a Tesla Model S Raven (with the new range improvements) on a test drive from Fremont to Los Angeles -- a distance of 359 miles -- to test its claimed range of 370 miles. This test was made in dry, temperate weather. The car made it with a bit to spare . . . but with this proviso:

    "We're told [by the Tesla engineers] to set the climate control at 72, fan speed at 2, drive at the speed limit, and on the freeway to keep between 65 and 70 mph." Although there were some route options, the test driver was also told not to deviate from the route Tesla specified.

    I lived in California and now live in Florida. On either coast I would be rear-ended if I tried to stay below 70 on the freeways, where traffic typically runs 80-85 mph. And not even delivery or dump trucks drive the 45 mph speed limit on the straight, flat 6-lane surface streets that stretch for miles on end in Florida and where speeds are typically close to 60 mph (as local police seem to give about a 15 mph leeway before taking enforcement action).

    I do not doubt a Tesla can deliver EPA range if one is exercising care, even short of hypermiling. I do doubt, however, if most drivers can or will comply with the above conditions consistently. Add in a little cold or rainy weather, and the range deteriorates further. Besides the significant impact of cold on battery charge, just keeping the cabin warm in winter affects range enough that Tesla recommends using the seat heaters in order to reduce the need to warm the cabin air.

    I honestly hope that two years from now I'm eating crow about this, but I seriously doubt that most Rivian drivers will routinely attain the advertised range on their trucks or SUVs.
     
  7. Lmirafuente

    Lmirafuente Active Member

    First Name:
    Lionel
    Vehicles:
    BMW740i
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2019
    Location:
    California
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    43
    To the Forum on this topic,

    I spoke to RJ at the Overland West Expo earlier this year and he ask me, my wife, a reporter that walked up into the conversation and he asked us a few questions work thinking about:

    1. How many gas stations do you there are in the USA?
    2. How long do you think it takes to build a gas station?
    3. How long do you think it takes to build a charge station?

      The answers to these questions are below and RJ has no concerns about the electric range anxiety.

    1. 165,000
    2. three years (think about the environmental impact studies, etc)
    3. one month
    Also, check out what Chevron is already doing: https://electrek.co/2019/05/20/chevron-ev-charging-gas-stations/

    RJ said that in 10 years, and in my opinion before then, the issue of charge anxiety will be non-existent.

    Hope this helps...
     
    Mjhirsch78 and skyote like this.
  8. ajdelange

    ajdelange Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    A. J.
    Vehicles:
    Tesla X 100D 2018
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Location:
    Virginia/Quebec
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    19
    #88 ajdelange, Sep 4, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
    I would think what you get in your Tesla would be representative enough of your driving style and conditions that it should be reasonably representative of what you can expect in your Rivian.

    That said, I estimate that 30% of S, X and 3 drivers achieve spec or better mileage. As of the end of August the average S, X, or 3 driver is achieving 97% of spec. But do note that that goes down to 84% in the winter months.

    I'll also note that with my X I usually set autopilot for 5 - 10 over the speed limit (depending on what the traffic is doing) and achieve 128% of spec but the majority of my driving is not on freeway. It is on rural roads where the speed limits tend to be between 80 and 100 (kmph) in the countryside and 50 in towns.

    I would also venture a guess that the car companies have as many lawyers involved in setting their advertised range as engineers because they know that there will be hundreds or thousands of sharks circling any claimed range hoping to be able to form a class.

    All in all, unless you are one of the few who gets less than 60% of advertised range on his current BEV, I think we can expect to get pretty close to what Rivian eventually specifies.
     
  9. skyote

    skyote Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    Jeeps & 2500HD Duramax
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Location:
    TX
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    80
    Did anyone else notice how Rivian often says up to 300+ or 400+ range? I get the feeling it is their corporate culture to under promise & over deliver. Let's hope that's what they are doing with the range and that the efficiency calculations that some have done here are understated.
     
    jimcgov3 likes this.
  10. Hmp10

    Hmp10 Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2019
    Location:
    Naples, FL
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    137
    "Up to" usually means a maximum that can be obtained under optimal conditions, such as "earn up to $400 an hour working at home!" In the case of EV range, "up to" probably means under optimal road, load, and weather conditions with fairly conservative driving.

    The Rivian website uses the term "up to" when citing range, and EPA ranges are never qualified that way. Rivian has not given EPA ranges thus far, and I suspect none have yet been calculated. It will be interesting to see where they come in.
     
  11. skyote

    skyote Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    Jeeps & 2500HD Duramax
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Location:
    TX
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    80
    I didn't do the best job emphasizing the "+" part. I've seen the + on all figures provided by Rivian.

    Yes, they include "up to" as well, but that's a given due to different conditions & driving styles.
     
    Hmp10 likes this.
  12. azjohnny

    azjohnny Active Member

    First Name:
    john
    Vehicles:
    Tesla Model S 100D Toyota Tundra
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2019
    Location:
    AZ
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    7
    When I think of "up to" internet speeds come to mind. With my internet company I am on a plan of "up to" 40 mbs, but never get that in speed tests. Usually between 20-35 never reaching 40
     
  13. jimcgov3

    jimcgov3 Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    Jimmy
    Vehicles:
    2016 Chevy Spark EV, Rivian R1T Reservation Holder
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2019
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    86
    ****Disclaimer****

    Comparing apples to oranges....

    My 2016 Chevy SparkEV is rated at 28kWh/100miles. I consistently manage 25kWh/100miles or better since I bought it in May. That may not seem like a huge difference but it is the equivalent of 14.44MPGe. So who knows...
     
  14. ajdelange

    ajdelange Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    A. J.
    Vehicles:
    Tesla X 100D 2018
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Location:
    Virginia/Quebec
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    19
    I don't think you are comparing apples to oranges. You have indicated that your car is rated at 280 Wh/mi but that in actual operation of it you are seeing 250 Wh/mi. In TeslaFi's language you are operating at 112% efficiency and are another example of someone who gets better than rated performance from his BEV. You will probably get better performance from your Rivian too. But note that I said "probably" not "definitely".
     
  15. Hmp10

    Hmp10 Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2019
    Location:
    Naples, FL
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    137
    Earlier this year, Whatcar? conducted tests to determine real-world range of EVs: https://www.whatcar.com/news/what-c...-car-can-go-farthest-in-the-real-world/n18162

    Their test procedures were:

    1. Fully deplete the battery.
    2. Measure the energy (in kWh) required to fully recharge the battery.
    3. Leave the car overnight in an air-conditioned garage set to 18deg C.
    4. Check the tyre pressures to ensure they match the manufacturer’s recommendations.
    5. Only test when the ambient air temperature is between 10 and 15deg C.
    6. Tests are always conducted with a driver and front passenger, or with the car ballasted accordingly.
    7. The climate control is set to 21deg C while the car is plugged in, and it’s only unplugged once the interior is up to temperature. The climate control is left at the same level for the remainder of the test with headlights switched on.
    8. If the car has multiple driving modes, ‘normal’ is selected, along with the minimum level of regenerative braking.
    9. All driving is done at What Car?’s private test track. The 19.4-mile route simulates a mix of stop-start urban traffic, rural roads and motorways. This route is driven twice for cars with batteries that accept more than 60kWh during the preparation stage and three times for cars with batteries that accept more than 100kWh.
    10. Consistent driving is ensured by the use of a Racelogic Route Profiler, which records speed on a second-by-second basis.
    11. At the end of the test, the car is plugged back in and the energy required to return its battery to full is measured.
    12. Knowing the kWh required for the test route and for a full recharge from flat enables us to calculate the Real Range.

    Rivian is claiming 410 miles of range on a 180 kWh battery pack -- or 2.28 miles/kWh. (Since the batteries are usually protected against a full discharge, the actual m/kWh figure would have to be higher to get 410 miles of usable range.)

    Many of the cars Whatcar? tested turned in 3-plus miles/kWh, suggesting that Rivian's range estimate might, in fact, be conservative for real-world driving. However, if you look at the larger EV's they tested, things look a bit different:

    Audi E-Tron: 2.0 miles/kWh

    Mercedes EQC: 2.2 miles/kWh

    Tesla Model X 100D: 2.0 miles/kWh

    If Whatcar?'s tests are valid, this means the Rivian R1S, which is larger, heavier, and probably less aerodynamic than the above three vehicles, will get more miles per kWh than any of the above three EVs.

    If that turns out to be the case, kudos to Rivian.
     
    skyote likes this.
  16. skyote

    skyote Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    Jeeps & 2500HD Duramax
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2019
    Location:
    TX
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    80
    Interesting, thanks @Hmp10 !
     
  17. EVian

    EVian Member

    Vehicles:
    BMW 330e
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2019
    Location:
    Newmarket, UK
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Those figures surprise me. The Teslas are supposed to be pretty efficient, relatively speaking. The Audi and Merc (the Merc particularly) are cars based on existing ICE platforms, and are reported to be not efficient (I don’t have a citation but this is what I’ve understood from what I’ve read and heard).

    Yes the MX is bigger and less efficient than the other Teslas by comparison, but I’d expect it to be well ahead of the encumbents.
     
    ajdelange likes this.
  18. ajdelange

    ajdelange Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    A. J.
    Vehicles:
    Tesla X 100D 2018
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Location:
    Virginia/Quebec
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    19
    On Tuesday last I drove my 100X 70.65 miles total with several stops and used 62.56 "rated" miles consuming 19.77 kWh. That's 280 Wh per mile and dividing by 19.77 tells me that I got 3.57 mile per kWh. This is according to TeslaFi and the odometer in the car tells the same story. This is real data. Looking into it a bit further TeslaFi tells me that my efficiency for this day's driving was overall 112.93% and applying that to Wh/mi and mi/kWh numbers indicates that the "rated" utilization for my model is 316.25 WH/mi equivalent to 3.16 mi/kW hour. No, that doesn't look suspect as sqrt(10) = 3.16228... Now the guys at Whatcar concluded that the "real" range of the X100D is 2 mile/kWh or 63% of what is reasonable. I did this sort of thing for a living for many years and if the junior engineer came to me with a result that bad I'd send him straight back to the lab. If he got a similar result again I'd be back in the lab with him to help him find out where he was screwing up. My purpose here isn't so much to critique WhatCar's test procedure so much as it is to try to convey, once again, that there is no single real range number. If you latch onto the results of a single test like the one cited you are fooling yourself. The range you get from a particular car depends on how you dive it and under what conditions. That doesn't seem to be sinking in.

    It's fine to say all that but how can we compare the usable range of vehicle A to vehicle B if there is no "real range" number?The answer is that we must (or someone must) collect ensemble data over a variety of circumstances and we must analyze that. If we look at ensemble data from Stats (another 3rd party Tesla app that gets data from the API) we find that based on my Tuesday excursion alone my performance was better than 85 - 90% of other X100D drivers whereas Whatcar's measured performance was worse than 85 - 90% of other drivers'. So I wouldn't advise anyone to decide that an X100D is going to give him 3.57 mi/kWh nor would I advise him to assume that it is going to be 2 mi/Kwh either. It's going to be about half way between and indeed that's where the center of the distribution is found. The manufacturer has to run chassis dynamo tests and apply the results of those to what he has learned in an ensemble of wind tunnel etc. testing to come up with a single number called the EPA range which is representative but is not, except perhaps, by the naive, to be interpreted as the "real range". Allowing for the degradation to my battery I calculate my 100% charged rated range to be 292 miles. That's pretty close to the EPA range of 295 (the best I ever got was 294 - should I sue?)

    So what about the Rivian? Their tentative numbers suggest that they will be requiring 2 mi/kWh. As time passes they will come up with a rated number which is probably going to be close to 2. You, the new Rivian driver, will get better than 2 sometimes and worse than 2 others. Your average will depend on how and where you drive. Rivian has convinced me that they are no slouches and I am, therefore, confident that the EPA range number they come up with will be as good as Tesla's. I expect that I'll get about 13% better than that.


    As we have just demonstrated from fleet data that 85% of Tesla drivers get results better than what Whatcar reported I guess that answers the question as to whether Whatcar's tests are valid.
     
  19. ajdelange

    ajdelange Well-Known Member

    First Name:
    A. J.
    Vehicles:
    Tesla X 100D 2018
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Location:
    Virginia/Quebec
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    19
    Should have surprised the editor too!
     
  20. Hmp10

    Hmp10 Well-Known Member

    Vehicles:
    2015 Tesla Model S P90D; 2018 Honda Odyssey
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2019
    Location:
    Naples, FL
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    137
    I'm not an expert in this area, but I began seeing some anomalies in my battery charge readout in my Model S. It began suddenly to show phantom losses while the car was parked in my garage. I had it set to charge up to 232 miles of range. If I left the gar in the garage for a day or two, I might see the range drop to 229 or 228. Suddenly this changed. Every time I charged the car up to 232 and left it more than a day, the indicated range would have dropped significantly, and by wider margins each time. By the time I called Tesla, the car was showing 211 miles of range when charged up to my preset limit. (My garage has insulated doors and windows, an insulated ceiling, and is partially cooled by two 80-gallon heat pump water heaters, so that temperatures seldom exceed 80 degrees, and the batteries don't need a lot of cooling or warming.)

    Tesla told me that the car does not directly measure charge remaining in the battery but rather calculates it using various factors. They told me that if I switched the car to indicate remaining range as a percentage instead of in miles the seeming drain would disappear. It did. I now charge the car to 80%, and it remains there or very near there for two-three days without driving the car. In other words, changing to a readout of battery charge by percentage rather than range yielded a very different outcome, although nothing had changed in the actual state of battery charge.

    The point of all this is that I doubt if you are getting a direct read of anything off your battery. You are seeing figures that are the result of some calculation that takes several obscure factors into account and makes some assumptions based on driving history. I think that is the reason Whatcars? used a different and more direct technique for determining the amount of electricity used in their tests.
     

Share This Page