Mercedes-Benz Boasts 620-Mile Range For Its Latest EV Concept (engadget.com) 195
Mercedes-Benz has unveiled a concept electric vehicle it claims would be able to run for more than 620 miles before needing to recharge. Engadget reports: Should it come to fruition and live up to that promise, the Vision EQXX would beat the range of the Lucid Air Dream Edition by more than 100 miles and the Tesla Model S Long Range Plus by around 220 miles. Based on the automaker's simulations, the Vision EQXX would use less than 10 kWh to travel 62 miles on public roads, delivering an efficiency of more than 6 miles per kWh. Converted into fossil fuel consumption, Mercedes says that's around the "golden figure" of 1 liter of gasoline per 62 miles.
The battery is half the size of and 30 percent lighter than the one in the EQS. However, it still has a capacity of almost 100 kWh. What's more, there are ultra-thin solar panels on the roof that can add up to 25 km (15.5 miles) of range. The Vision EQXX is a lightweight car (1,750 kg or 3,858 lbs) that has been aerodynamically optimized. The automaker says that, with a drag coefficient of cd 0.17, the EV is more aerodynamic than a football (which has a cd of 0.18 to 0.2). What's more, Mercedes claims that 95 percent of battery energy is directed to the wheels.
Teams from Mercedes' research and development centers worked with its Formula 1 and Formula E engineers on the concept. They harnessed digital tools to reduce waste and weight by cutting out excess material -- the wheels are made with magnesium and the brake discs are built with aluminum alloy. The Vision EQXX uses recycled and plant-based materials too. As for the interior, the Vision EQXX's infotainment system has a single 47.5-inch, mini-LED 8K screen. Like the Hyperscreen in the EQS, it spans almost the entire width of the cabin, though this is a one-piece display. The automaker worked with NAVIS Automotive Systems on a navigation system with zoom and scroll functions that include a satellite view. The "Hey Mercedes" voice assistant is integrated into the infotainment system too.
The battery is half the size of and 30 percent lighter than the one in the EQS. However, it still has a capacity of almost 100 kWh. What's more, there are ultra-thin solar panels on the roof that can add up to 25 km (15.5 miles) of range. The Vision EQXX is a lightweight car (1,750 kg or 3,858 lbs) that has been aerodynamically optimized. The automaker says that, with a drag coefficient of cd 0.17, the EV is more aerodynamic than a football (which has a cd of 0.18 to 0.2). What's more, Mercedes claims that 95 percent of battery energy is directed to the wheels.
Teams from Mercedes' research and development centers worked with its Formula 1 and Formula E engineers on the concept. They harnessed digital tools to reduce waste and weight by cutting out excess material -- the wheels are made with magnesium and the brake discs are built with aluminum alloy. The Vision EQXX uses recycled and plant-based materials too. As for the interior, the Vision EQXX's infotainment system has a single 47.5-inch, mini-LED 8K screen. Like the Hyperscreen in the EQS, it spans almost the entire width of the cabin, though this is a one-piece display. The automaker worked with NAVIS Automotive Systems on a navigation system with zoom and scroll functions that include a satellite view. The "Hey Mercedes" voice assistant is integrated into the infotainment system too.
unveiled (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Why does everything have to be 'unveiled' these days? Why is it veiled anyway? Can't things just be announced/introduced/shown/displayed?"
Doesn't matter, they'll sell 27 of them per month, like their previous model.
Re:unveiled (Score:5, Informative)
Also: Since when does a "concept" count as any sort of actual mileage? They can basically make the numbers up.
Tesla is selling their cars, today, with the advertised mileage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it gives a performance "uplift"!
Uplift is the new tech-writing fad word for increase. If you read any article about benchmarking new computing products now you'll probably see it at least three times it's probably related to marketing uplift [wikipedia.org], which is essentially what those writers are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
For the last car I bought, the vendor did a celebratory "unveiling". For the same car, I'd picked from the showroom the week before.
I think it might be psychosomatic.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everything have to be 'unveiled' these days?
Concept cars are traditionally literally unveiled [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's extra bullshit in this case because you can't really unveil something that doesn't actually exist. All they've done here is announce it. They don't even have a prototype! That's something they could actually unveil.
Re: (Score:3)
So just like Tesla. Funny how this comment was never offered for the last several Tesla models that were announced but didn't "actually exist". Besides, what does "actually exist" even mean?
MB has something to unveil, as evidenced by them unveiling it. Your objections are hypocrisy, the car industry has long worked this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it is done since at least Bronze Age times, when new statues or other landmarks were hidden from public view by a veil until the veil got pulled away in a ceremony. I don't know where you have lived in the last 3,500 years, but that's how we did it all the time.
Re:unveiled (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the early 80's there was a rather successful computer line called the Osborn. However, the company was very proud on their next version of their computer that they wanted to market the hell out of it to show everyone how much cooler that version would be. However still a smallish company, and the hype the created around the Osborn 2, people stopped buying the Osborn 1, because they figured they can wait a few months or a year and get a much better version.
Due to lack of sales of the Osborn 1, the company didn't have the money to survive for the release of the Osborn 2.
Companies now try to keep their roadmap under veil trying to give the unveiling in the sweet spot of time, were people would be interested in getting that new product, but not willing to get the product at this movement, as well giving a lot of time for its other products to shine and make profit, to allow them risk being sold at a discount after the unveiling.
Range isn't the issue any more (Score:3, Insightful)
Charging time is. If an EV could be charged in 15 minutes or less to full then few people would care if it could only do 200 miles on a charge. Yes, 600 miles is great, but how long does charging it up take? I assume MB haven't come up with some new battery chemistry so presumably its twice as long as a 300 range battery for the same recharge power.
Yes I know some fast chargers can charge some batterys to 80% in 20 mins, but 80% isn't 100% and it almost certainly reduces the lifetime of the battery charging that fast with the current lithium technology we have. Hopefully a new/revised battery chemistry will come along in the next few years that will solve this issue.
Re: (Score:3)
If an EV could be charged in 15 minutes or less to full then few people would care if it could only do 200 miles on a charge.
You mean like Teslas can?
https://www.tesla.com/supercha... [tesla.com]
Re:Range isn't the issue any more (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe it was the "200 miles on a charge" part.
Re:Range isn't the issue any more (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. People don't care about "full" near as much as range. If the range is 1000 miles and you can get 50% charged in 15 minutes, few would care if it takes 8 hours to get to full.
Re:Range isn't the issue any more (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats to 80%. Which part of "to full" didn't you understand?
Joce640k already answered this, but just to make it more concrete. You wrote: "If an EV could be charged in 15 minutes or less to full then few people would care if it could only do 200 miles on a charge."
While 80% full doesn't constitute charging to to full, it is sufficient charge to do 200 miles, which makes it effectively the same thing. If charging enough to go 200 miles in 15 minutes is the important thing then it seems like the battery being full or not is an inconsequential extra detail.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't give a shit about "full" with EVs when it's a made up concept anyway. A "full" charge is not the same as a "full" tank of gas.
What people care about is how often, and how long, charging stops take and how available charging stations are. Miles/minute is a far better charging metric as it most closely matches what happens with conventional vehicles. Unfortunately, people here on /. struggle with concepts like this because they don't exist in Musk's speeds and feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Look who's talking! It's not as though you're a rocket scientist.
Re: (Score:3)
80% for a 200 mile battery = 160 miles which is far less useful. Perhaps basic maths isn't one of your strong points.
Ok. Reading comprehension may not be your strong suite. Although, I did make the mistake of assuming that you understood from the get go that we were talking about a Tesla with a range of over 200 miles. I believe the shortest range new Tesla currently has a 262 mile range. 80% of that is about 210 miles and other models offer longer ranges.
So, if you charge to 80% of a vehicle that has greater than 200 mile range, you can get a 200 mile range on an 80% charge. So, if a range of 200 miles is sufficient to
Re: (Score:2)
I think if EV Car makers should had set 10% charge to 0% and 90% charge to 100%, so you can drive in the negative if you are in an emergency, or when you need a lot of range you can "top off the tank"
However I understand EV Makers understand that buyers have Range Anxiety so they want to advertise more mile ranges than their competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Some EVs can be charged in 15 minutes already. Kia, Porsche, Tesla and more all have very high charge rates.
600 miles is a waste of money for most people. 250 seems to be the sweet spot, reasonably cheap but makes doing longer trips easy too. There are a few vehicles meeting that criteria under 40k Euro/USD now.
Re: (Score:2)
That really illustrates the old joke that Americans think 100 years is a long time, whereas Europeans think 100 miles is a long way.
250 miles is at most 4 hours of highway speed, which does not work well for long trips because it doesn't align well with a full afternoon of driving. To pick an example, my father lives 600 miles from me, and when we drive we usually take a single day with one refueling stop each way. (Our hybrids, one car and one SUV, have similar ~500-mile ranges.) An EV with 250-mile ran
Re: (Score:3)
To pick an example, my father lives 600 miles from me, and when we drive we usually take a single day with one refueling stop each way.
For Europeans, this is an equivalent of driving from Paris to Berlin. At witch point you might ask how is this not a train journey?
Re:Range isn't the issue any more (Score:5, Informative)
I am like many Americans in that neither I nor my parents live in big cities. Also, US passenger trains are largely terrible.
In the particular example of visiting my father, it would involve getting a taxi to a subway station (only 7 km for me), taking a 40-minute subway ride to Union Station (DC), taking a 12-hour train ride to Savannah, and then taking a taxi the 20 km to my father's house. If I drive, it takes about 9 hours (including stops) and fuel is about $80. By train, it would take at least 14 hours (overlapping time I would rather be asleep) and cost $400 in railfare for the cheapest, least sleepable option.
If I wanted to visit my mother instead, who lives 260 km from the nearest Amtrak station, a train trip is intractable, compared to 13 hours of driving.
Re: (Score:2)
" and fuel is about $80" ...). It might double your total cost (but it is still below train fare). ... Not relevant if you actually like or love driving though.
You also pay for car deprecation, mileage-based maintenance happening more often (oil changes, brakes,
Also, when you drive you drive - on a train you could read, talk with others, learn something, watch movies,
Re: (Score:2)
Some people like driving, some people suffer from motion sickness which gets MUCH worse if you read or watch movies etc (and most people don't suffer motion sickness when driving because you're in control). You can talk with others in a car, and you only need one driver - most cars will typically hold 3-4 passengers and some larger ones can hold 8 passengers.
Car depreciation occurs anyway, mileage based maintenance doesn't cost that much and hours of steady highway driving is actually far less taxing on the
Neither is safety (Score:3)
There's a meme running around that flying is the safest way to travel, and I wanted to put some numbers on that to see if it was still true.
I'm in Boston, should I fly to Chicago or drive? About 15 hours to drive, and I happen to enjoy driving. Flying takes most of a day, when accounting for car rental, early arrival, waiting for luggage, and so on.
The flying meme in several articles says that the chance of death form flying is 1/64 the chance of driving, but is there any nuance to this?
The original calcula
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mean to imply that you are irrational or ignorant, just pointing out that the public transport options in the US are so limited. For a 1000km trip there should be a backbone high speed (250 km/h or 150 mph) rail option that is well connected with regional transport. This kind of infrastructure is in place at least in Western Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also parts of germany where you can drive 250km/h on the autobahn.
Re: (Score:3)
compared to 13 hours of driving.
And why can't you do 13 hours of driving in an EV? With fast charging stations all over the country you can get pretty much anywhere where there's a road with an EV these days.
Oh you want to do it in 13 hours straight without having to take a 15min break every 2 hours? Well I hope your dear mother respects your decision to act so recklessly and not take a 15min break every 2 hours like you should in order to prevent you from becoming yet another drowsy driver statistic.
On the up side when you fall asleep at
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that to make a trip using an EV, you have to have a certain one that can use certain compatible chargers that are nowhere near as ubiquitous as gas stations so planning and possibly side trips can be involved if the chargers are not right along the route (or down for some reason).
Same trip with a gas fueled car doesn't require much planning since gas stations are likely to be along the route in convenient places.
Eventually, charging stations should catch up and be plentiful but we are nowhere
Re: (Score:2)
For Europeans, this is an equivalent of driving from Paris to Berlin. At witch point you might ask how is this not a train journey?
At the point that I'm driving in the North of Scotland, Norway or Sweden or Finland or even more remote areas of the alps and I may want to do 80 miles or so up and down hills whilst being 100 or more miles from the nearest charging station.
Once you take into account terrain, 600 miles theoretical gives you 150miles of effective out and back range whilst retaining 150 of emergency backup for getting to hospital or similar if something goes wrong.
In other words, range levels of 350 or more change EVs from an
Re: (Score:2)
It is a Mercedes for Germany.
While it could very well have a range of 1000 km (600 miles) at what the legal speeds are in most of Europe (120-130 km/h or some 80 mph max on highways), driving it on the unlimited speed stretches at 200+ km/h/120 mph will take a huge chunk out of that range.
So, all that "1000 km" range battery does is giving you maybe 2 hours of 200 km/h driving, with enough for the "slow" stretches at the beginning and end (city driving, village driving, 90 km/h / 55mph roads).
Re: (Score:2)
In a car, the costs are effectively the same for one person driving alone vs a family of 5 with a large quantity of luggage.
On a train, travelling alone costs half as much as travelling with a partner. Adding 2 more adults doubles the cost again and kids are only a little cheaper sometimes.
Carrying large, heavy or bulky items is horribly inconvenient on the train.
Travelling on trains is horribly inconvenient if you are mobility restricted (eg need to use a wheelchair etc).
Getting to/from the station takes t
Re: (Score:2)
So your trip is 600 miles, you need to charge twice. Say each stop is 30 minutes, you can use the bathroom, get food and drinks etc. That's a 9+ hour journey so you could easily do breakfast/lunch or lunch + snacks.
How much are you willing to pay to reduce that 1 additional hour on a 600 mile journey you presumably only make occasionally? You could buy a bigger battery, or you could pay for fossil fuels and all the additional maintenance those vehicles need.
That assumes you get no benefit from the stops as
Re: (Score:2)
How much are you willing to pay to reduce that 1 additional hour on a 600 mile journey you presumably only make occasionally?
Your assumptions are wrong. Recharging an electric vehicle at commercial stations costs more per mile [freep.com] than fuel-efficient cars. And a 30-minute charge might only get you 213 miles of range [pod-point.com], meaning an extra stop even with a car that costs twice as much as our Accord. How much more am I willing to pay for an extra hour of waiting for technology? None.
I would much rather switch drivers and take a 5-minute bathroom break at a highway rest area or gas station than sit for 90 minutes while my vehicle charges
Re: (Score:2)
Only on rip-off networks. And even then, you save a huge amount the rest of the time when you can charge at home or at work. Also, 90 minutes, very few cars are that slow.
The price of petrol is way too low in the US. Even in Europe it's too low, considering the damage it does. Motorists are externalizing their costs. There are good economic reasons why we can't make people pay the true costs, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't transition away from gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
"Rip-off networks". In your imaginary world, are Level 3 CCS stations free to install and maintain? In the reality I know, they cost $50,000 (per port!) to install, and high DC voltage and current mean they need specialized skills to maintain. Those costs need to be recouped somehow, unless you are -- shock -- externalizing your costs.
Do you know how many tanks of gas I can buy with the $50,000 I saved by buying a hybrid car rather than that Audi that gives 210 miles of range per fast charge?
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of networks that charge a lot less than the cost of gas per mile.
Also why compare with the overpriced Audi when you can get a 250+ mile range car for a fraction of that cost? A Kona or ZS EV are both under 40k Euro/USD.
As for why, because they you stop externalizing your costs on the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I picked that car because it gives something close to the range you specified for the fast charging time you specified.
An EV with a nominal 250 mile range will get 150 miles of range from a fast charge, because that's only good from 20% to 80% charge, which means four stops on my trip. And that means two hours of waiting for the car to charge.
Why are you so bad at basic logic and math?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's Bjorn Nyland's 1000km (612 mile) test results, in Norway where it's cold and there is often rain or snow, at highway speeds:
https://docs.google.com/spread... [google.com]
He includes a Kia PHEV for comparison. The next fastest car is a Model 3 LR which takes 20 minutes longer. 20 minutes on the end of a 9 hour trip.
There are 10 EVs that can do that trip with less than an hour extra added on. Some of them are quite reasonably priced, like the Kia EV6 and Ioniq 5. Even the Model 3 SR+ (the base model) is only an hou
Re: (Score:2)
I measure my life in time more than money. 30 extra minutes on a drive back from my parents is 30 more minutes of my life spent not doing what I enjoy. This is why I can't buy an electric car today. Once we reach the same distance my Q5 can travel today on 1 tank of gas I'll consider electric. Until then it's just not going to cut it for me. Even if electric cars were cheaper than my 2016 Q5.
Even then when electric cars have met my requirements I'll wait until my Q5 is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
I take this back. If my wife wants an electric car. I'd be completely supportive as long as we had a gasoline powered car for long trips.
Re: (Score:2)
I measure my life in time more than money. 30 extra minutes on a drive back from my parents is 30 more minutes of my life spent not doing what I enjoy.
So, the range of the Q5 appears to be between ~425 miles and ~537 miles based on an 18.5 gallon tank and 23/29 MPG rating. If you would have to stop to charge an EV, such as a Tesla model S long range, then it's presumably more than 400 miles to your parents house, but less than 537 miles. Even driving 75 the whole way, that's 5 1/3 hours at least Of course, it's pretty unlikely you and your parents both live at highway ramps, so it's probably a minimum of about 6 hours (which still averages over 65 mph) an
Re: (Score:2)
"This is the reality, today. It's only going to improve."
It's the reality today on the test route used. It is not the reality today for very many drivers. Yes, it is going to improve; maybe one day it will improve enough that the person you are arguing with may have reason to consider his options. Until then your arguments are in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
What a shitty post, reads like SuperKendall posted it.
"Only on rip-off networks"
Only consider BEV charge pricing that supports my narrative!
"...you save a huge amount the rest of the time when you can charge at home..."
Let's change the subject to something unrelated!
"The price of petrol is way too low in the US"
Because that helps my narrative!
"Motorists are externalizing their costs."
??? Tesla exists through enormous VC investment and government subsidies. Many Tesla owners get free supercharging.
"There ar
Re: (Score:2)
The study found that the average cost of a Level 1 charger is $600.
Level 1 is an effing standard wall outlet. When did these 'chargers' start costing $600? My electric came with the cable to plug into the garage outlet. This is a BS cost and so is the linked article.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody has a 20A circuit running to their garage. Shockingly, it costs money to have one installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that that cost includes a lot of upgraded infrastructure, like an upsized electrical service and additional panelboards
Re: (Score:2)
Still $600 to add a breaker to a spare in the panel and run wiring and conduit 20 feet or so to the charger location sounds reasonable.
Yep. I just installed an L2 charger in my garage and had an electrician put in a dedicated 50A, 240V circuit (NEMA 14-50 outlet) last year. Relatively short run (6' roughly) since the main panel was close. Total for both was about $1600.
That's a little higher than it should have been, but prices on L2 chargers jumped significantly last year. Presumably due to parts shortages from COVID, but who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
A friend has a Tesla P85 and we drove it 400 miles to Chicago. I think we spent something like an hour or so of pure charging time along the way there and on the way back.
Charging is baked into the routing map of the car, it basically builds a route which includes charging and what amount of charging you should do at each stop. Not every stop required a long charge, but one stop was close to 35 minutes each way.
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great. The long stops were basically in remote spots in a vast
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great. The long stops were basically in remote spots in a vast mall parking lot. There's nothing to do, unless you want to hoof it to the mall and wander. It would kind of suck if it was winter.
I will say, this is one I didn't expect when I bought my e-tron last year. In addition to being on the edge of mall or big-box parking lots, they generally aren't covered either. It was loads of fun trying to charge my car up on the way to Houston in the middle of a big storm in the pouring rain!
The situation will be much better when Buc-ee's gets their charging stations installed. Endless clean bathrooms, loads of good food and plenty of things to see while you charge up!
Re: (Score:2)
250 miles is at most 4 hours of highway speed, which does not work well for long trips because it doesn't align well with a full afternoon of driving. To pick an example, my father lives 600 miles from me, and when we drive we usually take a single day with one refueling stop each way. (Our hybrids, one car and one SUV, have similar ~500-mile ranges.) An EV with 250-mile range would need two recharges in each direction, plus a full charge before, but only one of those would be convenient for a meal time.
So you do an extra 20 minute charge and bathroom stop. Unless you're driving this route every other day, it's not going to make much of a difference. Plus it's good to take a break anyway. Yes I've driven non-stop before too, it's not great.
You can check how this actually works in practice, Bjorn does a 1000km test which is exactly the same as 600 miles. A M3 LR only adds 20 minutes to the trip vs an ICE car, and that's without accounting for eating lunch:
https://youtu.be/iPiJhokk0fo?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
As an American after 4 hours of driving, I do like to eat some food, go pee, get out of the car and stretch my legs, rest my eyes, as driving causes a lot of eye strain.
While I have done, 6-8 hour driving stretches before (I did still need to stop to fill the gas tank) but after doing them, I realize how stupid it was for me to do such. I was so tired and stressed out after driving for so long I couldn't enjoy my destination. as well if you are very tired you brain gives you some really bad advice "Go ahe
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you go.
So with a full charge before and a convenient mealtime stop, you have one stop that isn't convenient, so extra time compared to a gasoline fuelled car, so two, since you have to do the return journey.
How long is a charge? An hour? So two for the combined trip.
If you add up the total time per year waiting for charges on that trip, and add up the total amount of time spent per year on the faff that's ICE cars, which comes out on top?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the car. The Audi Turd will charge at a constant 150kW right up to 100%. As you say though, most slow down after hitting 80%.
The other thing you can do is instead of 2x30 minute charges, do 2x15 minutes and 1x30 minute. Two bathroom breaks and a food stop. In most cars the first 15 minutes are the fastest for charging.
Obviously good charging infrastructure helps, as does live data so you can see availability. That's coming through now, especially in Europe. If you watch some of Bjorn Nyland's
Re: (Score:2)
The Audi Turd will charge at a constant 150kW right up to 100%. As you say though, most slow down after hitting 80%
Not in my experience it doesn't. I have a 2021 Audi e-tron Sportback. At 80%, the charge rate starts dropping fairly quickly. By the time it's up to 100%, the charge rate is typically down to around 60kW. Still a lot faster than a level 2 charger, but it's definitely not charging full rate to 100%.
On the range question, you've got to give the spec a haircut, even when the car is new. At 75 mph (fairly typical highway speed in Texas), you aren't getting anywhere near the 220'ish mile range the e-tron is rate
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to take into account the possibility of winter driving, in which case the effective range drops another maybe 10%. Not a terribly large difference, but one to take into account also.
And there might be a "common wisdom" that winter range drops a lot compared to rated range (and while a car with empty tank or battery is a nuisance in summer, it might be life-threatening in winter - or so the "common wisdom" would suggest).
So if your monthly drive is close to 200 km with return trip in a differen
Re: (Score:2)
400+ miles ranges are probably a good idea for "Performance" or "Utility" type of cars. Going 160kph on the autobahn, or climbing the rocky mountains with a trailer. Takes more energy than the EPA calculates. These cars ICE Counterparts tend to have large tanks of gas as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Charging time is. If an EV could be charged in 15 minutes or less to full then few people would care if it could only do 200 miles on a charge.
First of all, people still care, because people are fucking impatient. Yes. The internet trained them that. Anything longer than 5 minutes, and there's no point in paying extra for "fast lane" service, which most assuredly will be a thing.
Sadly, we'll drain another 5 years arguing on who is going to be the corruptly dominant battery swap "standard" as the automotive giants spend billions of taxpayer-funded Too Big To Fail money fighting for that dominant position as gasoline demands to remain dominant, b
Re: (Score:2)
80% charge is good enough for most people. I mean they are doing cannonball rally runs in Tesla's now. 45 hours for a coast to cost run in a fully electric vehicle. https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I know some fast chargers can charge some batterys to 80% in 20 mins, but 80% isn't 100% and it almost certainly reduces the lifetime of the battery charging that fast
if you cared about battery lifetime, you wouldn't be charging to 100%, because that decreases it.
Re: (Score:2)
"If an EV could be charged in 15 minutes or less to full then few people would care if it could only do 200 miles on a charge."
Reading again and again the sentence, it seems you want some 200 miles of charge in 15 minutes.
An VW eGolf will "rapid charge" at 50kW from 0-80% in 35 minutes - that would be a real world range of some 120 miles.
Meanwhile, a Tesla Model S Long Range will charge 0-80% in 40 minutes (according to zap-map.com). That would be some 284 miles of range in 40 minutes, or some 200 miles of
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. If an BEV has sufficient range then as long as you can charge it up overnight, how long it takes to charge becomes irrelevant. By my calculations I reckon this kicks in at 450 miles of range. You probably want 500 miles at new so that it is still useful at the end of the vehicles life span.
Re: (Score:3)
Which would be great once everyone has a couple chargers at their home. Asking my dad to park in the driveway so I can slurp his electricity is probably a no go from a man who spent his whole life turning wrenches.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not living with him. I'm speaking about long distance travel. The original post mentioned range doesn't matter if you can charge it up overnight. That puts the cost on your host, not on you. Pretty crappy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that an electric car with a battery that large would probably have to have an MSRP of over $100,000 to be profitable.
There are a lot of Mercedes buyers who can afford that, but this certainly isn't the low cost 300+ mile range electric vehicle that I've been waiting for.
Re: (Score:2)
Charge time isn't as important as people think it is. With an EV a slight change in habits where you plug your car in at home every night so you can slowly charge your car while you are sleeping, and living your home life. Being that most people don't drive more than 100 miles every day that means people can go months without having to go to a fast charging station.
For those who are taking a road trip a few times a year, lets say if you charge from home to 100% with a 300 mile range car you drive to 10% s
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, 600 miles is great, but how long does charging it up take?"
800V charging and sub-100KWh capacity, it will likely charge at a miles/minute rate far better than anything today. That is a given.
"I assume MB haven't come up with some new battery chemistry so presumably its twice as long as a 300 range battery for the same recharge power."
What does this even mean? Any battery twice as big will take twice as long to charge "for the same recharge power". Are you an idiot?
"Yes I know some fast chargers can
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see them do a car special on streaming or TV where they travel from the arctic to either the tip of South Africa or Patagonia with an EV. Somewhere in Africa or South America they will end the show because there won't be anywhere to plug it in. Or they'll have 5 or 10 episodes where all they do is charge it with a portable solar cell. Meanwhile it isn't that hard to have someone carry in some liquid fuel in a tank, be it petrol or hydrogen.
We know (Score:2)
They also boasted that they didn't need to cheat and commit fraud for their Diesel cars to be within the law.
Re: (Score:2)
They also boasted that they didn't need to cheat and commit fraud for their Diesel cars to be within the law.
Well, these aren't just the Battery Wars. Or even the Automotive Vendor Wars.
This is all part of the Marketing War on Truth, where everyone is allowed and encouraged to clickbait the hell out of you with pure Grade-A bullshit in order to sell product from a corruptly dominant position, achieved by embracing the mating patterns of a virus across society.
Strange unit mix (Score:5, Insightful)
Mercedes says that's around the "golden figure" of 1 liter of gasoline per 62 miles.
This makes much more sense when stated as "1 liter of gasoline per 100 km".
Re: Strange unit mix (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mercedes says that's around the "golden figure" of 1 liter of gasoline per 62 miles.
This makes much more sense when stated as "1 liter of gasoline per 100 km".
Even then it doesn't make any sense. Where do I put my 1 litre of gasoline to get the 100km?
Re: (Score:2)
Mercedes says that's around the "golden figure" of 1 liter of gasoline per 62 miles.
This makes much more sense when stated as "1 liter of gasoline per 100 km".
Even then it doesn't make any sense. Where do I put my 1 litre of gasoline to get the 100km?
In the form of electricity - right in the battery. 10 kWh for 100 km is impressive, my car (a Jaguar i-Pace) uses twice that on a good day.
997.7933km for the rest of the world (Score:2)
997.7933km for the rest of the world
Re: 997.7933km for the rest of the world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was probably 1000 when the number was fabricated in Germany.
US customs and excise rounded it down to 997.8.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this. The original articles are 1000km, not in miles.
It's only a concept (Score:2)
Might as well claim 5000km. You can never buy concept cars; they're rarely even drivable.
#
Re: (Score:3)
It's also funny that 1750 kg is described as a lightweight car. That's substantially more than the Toyota RAV4 SUV, which is 1680 kg for the 2022 hybrid version, and only 1530 kg for the gasoline version. I guess mid-size SUVs are now lightweight cars?
Re: (Score:3)
It's lightweight for a Mercedes Benz. Their S-class is well over 2000kg.
Re: (Score:2)
The B Class (which would be called Executive Class Compact car at 4,4 meters long or 14.5 feet) weigh 1400+ kg.
So, 1750kg for a concept electric sedan is not lightweight is closer to "normal weight".
Just for reference, the EQS has almost 2500kg for a range of (up to) 770 km.
And a Tesla will weigh in excess of 2,000 kg for a 500+km range.
But let's not compare real in-production cars against concept cars with simulated range - yes, simulated not actually tested - and most probably simulated ABS, simulated air
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Camry is Toyota's mid-range car, so it's a poor point of comparison for a lightweight car. The hybrid version of the Corolla is 1310 kg, so this concept vehicle weighs 33% more than a lightweight hybrid does.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of math are you using where 1750 is substantially more than 1530? You might want to pick a better choice of word.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a seventh of the SUV's total weight -- two or three adults. By either metric, that's a substantial difference in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, it is is 1750 kg, and to get there they had to use aluminum disks in the braking system. Those aren't going to last. It's OK though, braking isn't important.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn’t matter anymore, look at how many people but down money to buy the Tesla Cybertruck (will need to change to meet regulations) or Roadster (fictional).
Some concept cars do end up being produced such as the Chevrolet Volt.
Based on the automaker's simulations (Score:2)
aka marketing bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even based on simulations, unless those simulations are conducted in Sahara over a year for a single drive, because they claim 25km extra range from "solar panels on the roof".
Still not ready for mass market (Score:2)
600 miles? I need to be able to tow my 30ft boat over 2000 miles of mountain road, in the winter, without stopping for bathroom breaks (catheter ftw). Electric cars clearly still aren't ready for mainstream adoption.
/s
key word being "concept" (Score:3)
It seems like a lot of companies make EV concepts and small runs, but only Tesla and BYD seem to making them in large numbers.
Could be true (Score:2)
German testers called its speed and acceleration mediocre at best.
For a 70 year old, the median age for Mercedes-buyers, it should be no different from their gas-models.
But nobody who'd ever drove a fast E-car would buy one.
Hey Mercedes? (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't see that catching on. Too many syllables. Whenever I hear about a super aerodynamic car with solar panels on the roof I picture those wafer-thin engineering competition vehicles that try to cross Australia or some damn thing that's equally useless in the real world.