4 ms·
> So he designed the Lucid around a 900-watt architecture. “It’s the only one I’m aware of,” he says. “Tesla’s round about 400 V. Porsche, they upped the ante l
by timerol 6y ago
> So he designed the Lucid around a 900-watt architecture. “It’s the only one I’m aware of,” he says. “Tesla’s round about 400 V. Porsche, they upped the ante last year to 800 V.”
Is that supposed to be 900 V? Considering the car can push out 750 kW, a "900-watt architecture" doesn't mean much. I would think that the IEEE would be the one place I could trust to not mess up electrical units...
- zbrozek 6y agoI found the whole article to be pretty disappointing wrt/technical content, doubly so for something from IEEE.
- aidenn0 6y agoI originally read right over that as 900V. I think I'm so used to reading articles with energy/voltage/power mixed up I just gloss over it now.
- Kirby64 6y agoHas to be a typo. 900V is the only thing that makes sense in the context of the 'reducing current' since that is the 'main loss'. This whole article is kind of terrible though... they're talking about reducing losses by using SiC MOSFETs and using higher voltage architecture... except they fail to recognize that higher voltage MOSFETs inherently have higher impedance when on, and it causes a bunch of other potential issues. Also, they're comparing themselves against the Porsche Taycan... which is one of the worst performing (in kWh/efficiency value) cars out there. Why not compare against the Model 3? The Model 3 uses SiC MOSFETs (although, 400V rated ones) just like they're talking about here.