8 ms·

Tesla Model S Goes 752 Miles with a Startup's Prototype Battery

71 points by elorant 5y ago

kss238 5y ago
Curious to see what a more realistic 75mph highway driving test would show. Guessing around 600 miles which is very impressive. Seems like a nobrainer for Tesla to acquire them if their claims pan out.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  It's not only the range that matters though. These batteries have a lot of cobalt, and Tesla is moving away from that. Moreover, we don't know how fast they charge, how many cycles they can be used, if they can be used in cold climates, how fire-prone they are, and maybe 10 other things that Tesla needs to consider for their production batteries. But yes, if all those other things are decent enough, Tesla obviously has the money to acquire this startup.
  - danans 5y ago
    > These batteries have a lot of cobalt Not according to the article: "In practice, that means lithium iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistry, which historically has energy density 30 percent lower than cobalt- or nickel-based chemistries (and, unfortunately, reportedly cold-weather issues). Its first product, Aries, will go into production late this year. It's a battery using prismatic LFP cells in a structural cell-to-pack architecture without separate modules, packing more cells into the pack to lower the energy disadvantage against cobalt cells."
    - reportingsjr 5y ago
      That statement is about the other battery mentioned on their website, the "aries". The "gemini" which is what is in the linked article is a combination LFP and NMC. NMC batteries are the ones with large amounts of cobalt.
      - danans 5y ago
        Now I see it: > "The cathode will be made of a proprietary material rich in manganese that ONE says can be sustainably sourced at low cost. (The company has so far applied for 14 patents related to the Gemini pack.) The LFP cells cover 99 percent of the vehicle’s duty cycle, Ijaz told C/D, and the range extender is used for just 1 percent. > As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development." So this was just an energy density demonstration. It does sound like they plan to use LFP cells, not cobalt-nickel, for the production batteries.
        notjulianjaynes 5y ago
        As I understand it, LFP cells have a lower energy density compared to cobalt. Is this company claiming they can build a 200kwh LFP battery that takes up the same amount of space as a stock model S battery?
        danans 5y ago
        That's their goal as I understand from this paragraph: > "The company dubs its prototype a proof of concept. The point is to show that real-world ranges far longer than an average driver's endurance (pit stops, ahem) can be achieved in the near future. The next step is for it to evolve into a new battery called Gemini, intended to go into production after 2023." They don't say whether it is LFP based though.
  - tssva 5y ago
    They just completed a significant distance test in Michigan during December so I'm guessing they operate ok in cold weather.
- ajross 5y ago
  I found a chart once where someone measured efficiency of some EV or another. And the rule of thumb was that the cars hit peak energy/distance efficiency at 40-45mph and drop to about half that at 90mph. Which would amusingly put your 600 mile guess just about dead on.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    I'd expect the Speed vs. MPG graphs for many conventional (gasoline or diesel engine) cars to be similar. Air resistance (of a given vehicle) is roughly proportional to the square of the velocity. And air resistance (or drag, to be more technical) doesn't care whether the car's wheels are being powered by batteries, burning fuel, or a wound-up giant spring.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      Air resistance starts very low though, until fairly high speeds other factors (e.g. rolling resistance) matter more. Weight is also relevant for climbing hills (more so for ICE which don’t reclaim any energy on the other side), …
    - toast0 5y ago
      All cars have to deal with the v squared air resistance, but EVs also have motors that get less efficient at higher speeds, and the more power you draw, the hotter your battery gets and that's a negative too. So really everything is aligned to punish you for going faster than a threshold speed. With a convential vehicle, it's not so simple. A lot of things get worse, but engine efficiency is usually better with higher temperatures (which is why the VW TDI NOx emissions fix results in more CO2 emissions; NOx is a result of nitrogen in outside air being exposed to the hot engine, lowering the temperature reduces fuel efficiency and NOx production), and the gearing is designed to get maxium fuel efficiency at higher speeds. Of course, if it would be commercially acceptable, an engine and gearing could be designed to get max efficiency at a lower speed and have a 40 mph super efficient vehicle. Hybrids can do a lot better at running the engine near peak efficiency or having the engine off, allowing for higher mpg all over the speed spectrum.
    - 5y ago
- pbreit 5y ago
  Founder came from A123 which Tesla indeed acquired. I wonder if Tesla already has the tech/know-how in-house?
  - Philip-J-Fry 5y ago
    I can't find any articles suggesting Tesla acquired A123.
  - reportingsjr 5y ago
    A123 has not been acquired by Tesla. A123 is owned by Wanxiang America.
vmception 5y ago
The key points: tests were averaging 55 mph the battery pack has twice the capacity and is twice as dense, allowing it to fit in the same space as the stock battery, and delivers the same performance so it is impressive and useful, not really much scifi here which is good, its just a double capacity battery in the same space that delivers the same performance definitely has now reached the range I'm looking for. make it happen, and somebody please just make classic car shells have these batteries in them. I don't understand why its just tesla, a couple of other luxury car brands that cost twice or thrice as much for worse charging service, or luxury car brands that decided to make a fugly tron-esque version of their car instead of just doing the same thing they're known for with a battery under the hood. intentionally ignoring the cheaper vehicles because they're not in the running either.
- deelowe 5y ago
  Tesla designed the entire chassis around the battery pack (as in, it's structural component). Traditional car companies are going to have to do a lot of very expensive retooling to something similar.
  - tw04 5y ago
    Traditional car companies moved to "platform" based vehicles 20 years ago and they refresh the entire platform every 5-ish years. This isn't really a big deal for any of them as evidenced by both Ford and GM already rolling out EV platforms. "There's no way GM can build a sub-$100k mid engine Corvette" was a common refrain too. They didn't get to that size by being bad at designing cars.
    - deelowe 5y ago
      They don't retool the factory every 5 years... I think you're underestimating things a bit. Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?
      - GiorgioG 5y ago
        They're constantly retooling their factories. My dad worked at several GM factories for nearly 40 years. I feel like every year or two GM would announce a huge spend per factory to retool/upgrade/etc.
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
How long does it take to charge this thing?
- Aaargh20318 5y ago
  Does it really matter if it has a range of 1200 kilometers ? I would have to charge this car once every 3-4 years or so.
  - dempseye 5y ago
    I would have to charge it every 3 weeks.
  - imstil3earning 5y ago
    sounds like you dont need a car
    - Aaargh20318 5y ago
      It’a convenient to have when I need it. I have a tiny car that cost me very little in taxes and insurance. Slightly more than a car sharing subscription would cost but available whenever I want without having to reserve it in advance.
  - djrogers 5y ago
    If you drive 300Km per year, you probably shouldn't own a car.
- masklinn 5y ago
  Twice the capacity, twice the charge time (more or less).
- mbauman 5y ago
  ~700 miles is the magic point at which charging times can be significantly extended to simply be overnight.
  - 5y ago
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
With twice the energy density, what would its performance be like in a crash? Did they actually do tests to validate that the battery would be safe in the event of a minor crash, before driving it on public roads?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- reportingsjr 5y ago
  This battery probably doesn't have much in the way of safety. It's a one off prototype meant for PR, not for production.
- vkou 5y ago
  As a limited set of tests, I don't think this is a huge issue. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of trucks full of petrol (Or other highly hazardous materials) driving around on highways and city streets (and occasionally getting into crashes) on a daily basis. It's more of a consideration when you put the car into the hands of consumers.
zozin 5y ago
Increased energy density is great, but what’s the point of carrying an extra 600-1,000lb of batteries around when for the vast majority of people the extra range is only used in a handful of cases per year, if that. Lots of consumers seem to be waiting on the sidelines until some magic range number is achieved (500? 1,000?), when in practice that range is unneeded on a daily basis. It’s like demanding a all-day battery from a laptop, only to leave it plugged in all day long anyway.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  If you're using a car for everyday short trips then, unless you have some kind of mobility impediment, you're doing it wrong.
  - jackson1442 5y ago
    Are you in the US? Because even if I wanted to walk/bus to the grocery store near me it would take almost 4x longer one-way (46 mins vs 12) and I’d also be subject to the maybe-once-per-hour schedule of the bus.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      I'm not in the US, but I didn't know the US was quite that bad. Can't you cycle?
      - noahtallen 5y ago
        Cycling is normally very dangerous in North America (outside of certain urban cores and small towns), due to the road design and zoning laws. This channel is helpful in understanding the problem: https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac
      - motoxpro 5y ago
        Most places in the US don't have cycling infrastructure. i.e. bike lanes or shoulders.
      - 5y ago
travisporter 5y ago
The website didn't load for me for some reason https://outline.com/pdWGMH https://outline.com/pdWGMH
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I'm trying to decide if this is anything special or just sleight of hand. I really do NOT know the figures, but I thought Tesla's only charged the cells to 80% and discharged to 20% to save battery life. If you are doing a one off test, you could go from 100%-0% to get 40% more battery life. And the article talks about fancy chemistries, but then says: "As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development." So they used what might be normal high capacity cells. Maybe their battery has fewer structural components so they can fit more cells in. Maybe Tesla uses a different chemistry for longer pack life. It seems like anyone could get maybe 40% more range doing nothing at all by simply fully charging and fully depleting the cells, and if you took the highest possible energy density cells and shoved them in to the same space with less structural members, maybe you could get the rest of the range they claimed. In fact it seems like that's what they did. But that's not an innovation if the pack will wear out in a year, or weaken the structure of the car. Like I said I am just speculating here and I don't really know, but so far this doesn't actually seem like the company has anything special. I have a feeling that if Tesla wanted to, they could do the same thing for a single demo, but that they have competing engineering requirements that mean they don't do this in production.
- robbiep 5y ago
  Well the article says that the battery capacity has gone from ~100kWh to ~200kWh… so I think they’re actually talking real increased battery capacity?
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    I am wondering if, when Tesla sells a car as "100kWh", that is the available capacity (80%-20%) or if the total pack capacity. There would be reasons why they would want to go either way. But I think the biggest difference is probably that there are known high capacity chemistries with shorter longevity, which can be safely ignored for a one off test to drum up press for investors.
jjk166 5y ago
Super high capacity batteries are just a poor solution to the range problem. How often are you going to drive 750 miles without stopping? Maybe a few times a year tops, likely less. The overwhelming majority of driving is over dramatically shorter distances - the average American motorist drives a little under 30 miles per day, and typically they're driving less than half that between long periods of being parked. It doesn't make sense to pay for 20 times more battery than you need just to use it <1% of the time. Further, batteries are low energy density, and you're just lugging all that excess weight around everywhere. And remember, battery production produces CO2: producing an extra 100 kwh of battery is equivalent to about 27,000 miles of driving on gasoline. Plug in hybrids let you drive around emission free for the overwhelming majority of situations at a fraction of the cost, but without the range anxiety. You only burn gas on long trips, and you can go as far as you want with easy refueling. Combustion fuels have immensely greater energy density than batteries, so carrying a few hundred miles of extra range around, either in your main tank or in a jerrycan, doesn't have a serious impact on weight, and ICEs are not nearly as temperature sensitive as batteries so you don't get screwed over in the winter. And for series hybrids like the chevy Volt, you get both the handling and efficiency of an electric vehicle even when on gasoline power. With federal tax credits plug in hybrid versions of many cars are actually cheaper than gasoline-only versions of the same models. There may be a serious argument for people who don't need long range (for example those buying a second car) to forego the engine altogether and just get an electric vehicle with a little longer range, but if ~200 miles isn't enough range for you then just go with the hybrid.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Ugh, no thanks. You can keep your dinosaurs. I've been full EV for several years now, and I can't fathom going back. Also, winter is a non-issue. Take it from someone living where it gets quite cold. Time to put aside your toys and embrace the future :)
  - anaganisk 5y ago
    No way are we going to have battery powered cars as a future. Its just shifting the problem from consumer side (ICE pollution) to(Battery) production side. Also many countries still use coal etc to produce power. Fuel cells are the true future.
tomohawk 5y ago
It's good to see some progress in this area, but Can it do that after 5 years of use? At 5 degrees F? Can it charge in 5 minutes? Even the cheapest gas powered cars can do this. This sort of performance may not matter to you if you only commute to work and back, but its the kind of performance that many people need on a day-to-day basis.
_robbywashere 5y ago
Interested in the longevity and how it compares to existing

71 points by elorant 5y ago

Curious to see what a more realistic 75mph highway driving test would show. Guessing around 600 miles which is very impressive. Seems like a nobrainer for Tesla to acquire them if their claims pan out.

credit_guy 5y ago
It's not only the range that matters though. These batteries have a lot of cobalt, and Tesla is moving away from that. Moreover, we don't know how fast they charge, how many cycles they can be used, if they can be used in cold climates, how fire-prone they are, and maybe 10 other things that Tesla needs to consider for their production batteries. But yes, if all those other things are decent enough, Tesla obviously has the money to acquire this startup.
- danans 5y ago
  > These batteries have a lot of cobalt Not according to the article: "In practice, that means lithium iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistry, which historically has energy density 30 percent lower than cobalt- or nickel-based chemistries (and, unfortunately, reportedly cold-weather issues). Its first product, Aries, will go into production late this year. It's a battery using prismatic LFP cells in a structural cell-to-pack architecture without separate modules, packing more cells into the pack to lower the energy disadvantage against cobalt cells."
  - reportingsjr 5y ago
    That statement is about the other battery mentioned on their website, the "aries". The "gemini" which is what is in the linked article is a combination LFP and NMC. NMC batteries are the ones with large amounts of cobalt.
    - danans 5y ago
      Now I see it: > "The cathode will be made of a proprietary material rich in manganese that ONE says can be sustainably sourced at low cost. (The company has so far applied for 14 patents related to the Gemini pack.) The LFP cells cover 99 percent of the vehicle’s duty cycle, Ijaz told C/D, and the range extender is used for just 1 percent. > As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development." So this was just an energy density demonstration. It does sound like they plan to use LFP cells, not cobalt-nickel, for the production batteries.
      - notjulianjaynes 5y ago
        As I understand it, LFP cells have a lower energy density compared to cobalt. Is this company claiming they can build a 200kwh LFP battery that takes up the same amount of space as a stock model S battery?
        danans 5y ago
        That's their goal as I understand from this paragraph: > "The company dubs its prototype a proof of concept. The point is to show that real-world ranges far longer than an average driver's endurance (pit stops, ahem) can be achieved in the near future. The next step is for it to evolve into a new battery called Gemini, intended to go into production after 2023." They don't say whether it is LFP based though.
- tssva 5y ago
  They just completed a significant distance test in Michigan during December so I'm guessing they operate ok in cold weather.
ajross 5y ago
I found a chart once where someone measured efficiency of some EV or another. And the rule of thumb was that the cars hit peak energy/distance efficiency at 40-45mph and drop to about half that at 90mph. Which would amusingly put your 600 mile guess just about dead on.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  I'd expect the Speed vs. MPG graphs for many conventional (gasoline or diesel engine) cars to be similar. Air resistance (of a given vehicle) is roughly proportional to the square of the velocity. And air resistance (or drag, to be more technical) doesn't care whether the car's wheels are being powered by batteries, burning fuel, or a wound-up giant spring.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Air resistance starts very low though, until fairly high speeds other factors (e.g. rolling resistance) matter more. Weight is also relevant for climbing hills (more so for ICE which don’t reclaim any energy on the other side), …
  - toast0 5y ago
    All cars have to deal with the v squared air resistance, but EVs also have motors that get less efficient at higher speeds, and the more power you draw, the hotter your battery gets and that's a negative too. So really everything is aligned to punish you for going faster than a threshold speed. With a convential vehicle, it's not so simple. A lot of things get worse, but engine efficiency is usually better with higher temperatures (which is why the VW TDI NOx emissions fix results in more CO2 emissions; NOx is a result of nitrogen in outside air being exposed to the hot engine, lowering the temperature reduces fuel efficiency and NOx production), and the gearing is designed to get maxium fuel efficiency at higher speeds. Of course, if it would be commercially acceptable, an engine and gearing could be designed to get max efficiency at a lower speed and have a 40 mph super efficient vehicle. Hybrids can do a lot better at running the engine near peak efficiency or having the engine off, allowing for higher mpg all over the speed spectrum.
  - 5y ago
pbreit 5y ago
Founder came from A123 which Tesla indeed acquired. I wonder if Tesla already has the tech/know-how in-house?
- Philip-J-Fry 5y ago
  I can't find any articles suggesting Tesla acquired A123.
- reportingsjr 5y ago
  A123 has not been acquired by Tesla. A123 is owned by Wanxiang America.

vmception 5y ago

The key points: tests were averaging 55 mph the battery pack has twice the capacity and is twice as dense, allowing it to fit in the same space as the stock battery, and delivers the same performance so it is impressive and useful, not really much scifi here which is good, its just a double capacity battery in the same space that delivers the same performance definitely has now reached the range I'm looking for. make it happen, and somebody please just make classic car shells have these batteries in them. I don't understand why its just tesla, a couple of other luxury car brands that cost twice or thrice as much for worse charging service, or luxury car brands that decided to make a fugly tron-esque version of their car instead of just doing the same thing they're known for with a battery under the hood. intentionally ignoring the cheaper vehicles because they're not in the running either.

deelowe 5y ago
Tesla designed the entire chassis around the battery pack (as in, it's structural component). Traditional car companies are going to have to do a lot of very expensive retooling to something similar.
- tw04 5y ago
  Traditional car companies moved to "platform" based vehicles 20 years ago and they refresh the entire platform every 5-ish years. This isn't really a big deal for any of them as evidenced by both Ford and GM already rolling out EV platforms. "There's no way GM can build a sub-$100k mid engine Corvette" was a common refrain too. They didn't get to that size by being bad at designing cars.
  - deelowe 5y ago
    They don't retool the factory every 5 years... I think you're underestimating things a bit. Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?
    - GiorgioG 5y ago
      They're constantly retooling their factories. My dad worked at several GM factories for nearly 40 years. I feel like every year or two GM would announce a huge spend per factory to retool/upgrade/etc.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago

How long does it take to charge this thing?

Aaargh20318 5y ago
Does it really matter if it has a range of 1200 kilometers ? I would have to charge this car once every 3-4 years or so.
- dempseye 5y ago
  I would have to charge it every 3 weeks.
- imstil3earning 5y ago
  sounds like you dont need a car
  - Aaargh20318 5y ago
    It’a convenient to have when I need it. I have a tiny car that cost me very little in taxes and insurance. Slightly more than a car sharing subscription would cost but available whenever I want without having to reserve it in advance.
- djrogers 5y ago
  If you drive 300Km per year, you probably shouldn't own a car.
masklinn 5y ago
Twice the capacity, twice the charge time (more or less).
mbauman 5y ago
~700 miles is the magic point at which charging times can be significantly extended to simply be overnight.
- 5y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

With twice the energy density, what would its performance be like in a crash? Did they actually do tests to validate that the battery would be safe in the event of a minor crash, before driving it on public roads?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
reportingsjr 5y ago
This battery probably doesn't have much in the way of safety. It's a one off prototype meant for PR, not for production.
vkou 5y ago
As a limited set of tests, I don't think this is a huge issue. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of trucks full of petrol (Or other highly hazardous materials) driving around on highways and city streets (and occasionally getting into crashes) on a daily basis. It's more of a consideration when you put the car into the hands of consumers.

zozin 5y ago

Increased energy density is great, but what’s the point of carrying an extra 600-1,000lb of batteries around when for the vast majority of people the extra range is only used in a handful of cases per year, if that. Lots of consumers seem to be waiting on the sidelines until some magic range number is achieved (500? 1,000?), when in practice that range is unneeded on a daily basis. It’s like demanding a all-day battery from a laptop, only to leave it plugged in all day long anyway.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
If you're using a car for everyday short trips then, unless you have some kind of mobility impediment, you're doing it wrong.
- jackson1442 5y ago
  Are you in the US? Because even if I wanted to walk/bus to the grocery store near me it would take almost 4x longer one-way (46 mins vs 12) and I’d also be subject to the maybe-once-per-hour schedule of the bus.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I'm not in the US, but I didn't know the US was quite that bad. Can't you cycle?
    - noahtallen 5y ago
      Cycling is normally very dangerous in North America (outside of certain urban cores and small towns), due to the road design and zoning laws. This channel is helpful in understanding the problem: https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac
    - motoxpro 5y ago
      Most places in the US don't have cycling infrastructure. i.e. bike lanes or shoulders.
    - 5y ago

travisporter 5y ago

The website didn't load for me for some reason https://outline.com/pdWGMH https://outline.com/pdWGMH

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I'm trying to decide if this is anything special or just sleight of hand. I really do NOT know the figures, but I thought Tesla's only charged the cells to 80% and discharged to 20% to save battery life. If you are doing a one off test, you could go from 100%-0% to get 40% more battery life. And the article talks about fancy chemistries, but then says: "As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still under development." So they used what might be normal high capacity cells. Maybe their battery has fewer structural components so they can fit more cells in. Maybe Tesla uses a different chemistry for longer pack life. It seems like anyone could get maybe 40% more range doing nothing at all by simply fully charging and fully depleting the cells, and if you took the highest possible energy density cells and shoved them in to the same space with less structural members, maybe you could get the rest of the range they claimed. In fact it seems like that's what they did. But that's not an innovation if the pack will wear out in a year, or weaken the structure of the car. Like I said I am just speculating here and I don't really know, but so far this doesn't actually seem like the company has anything special. I have a feeling that if Tesla wanted to, they could do the same thing for a single demo, but that they have competing engineering requirements that mean they don't do this in production.

robbiep 5y ago
Well the article says that the battery capacity has gone from ~100kWh to ~200kWh… so I think they’re actually talking real increased battery capacity?
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I am wondering if, when Tesla sells a car as "100kWh", that is the available capacity (80%-20%) or if the total pack capacity. There would be reasons why they would want to go either way. But I think the biggest difference is probably that there are known high capacity chemistries with shorter longevity, which can be safely ignored for a one off test to drum up press for investors.

jjk166 5y ago

Super high capacity batteries are just a poor solution to the range problem. How often are you going to drive 750 miles without stopping? Maybe a few times a year tops, likely less. The overwhelming majority of driving is over dramatically shorter distances - the average American motorist drives a little under 30 miles per day, and typically they're driving less than half that between long periods of being parked. It doesn't make sense to pay for 20 times more battery than you need just to use it <1% of the time. Further, batteries are low energy density, and you're just lugging all that excess weight around everywhere. And remember, battery production produces CO2: producing an extra 100 kwh of battery is equivalent to about 27,000 miles of driving on gasoline. Plug in hybrids let you drive around emission free for the overwhelming majority of situations at a fraction of the cost, but without the range anxiety. You only burn gas on long trips, and you can go as far as you want with easy refueling. Combustion fuels have immensely greater energy density than batteries, so carrying a few hundred miles of extra range around, either in your main tank or in a jerrycan, doesn't have a serious impact on weight, and ICEs are not nearly as temperature sensitive as batteries so you don't get screwed over in the winter. And for series hybrids like the chevy Volt, you get both the handling and efficiency of an electric vehicle even when on gasoline power. With federal tax credits plug in hybrid versions of many cars are actually cheaper than gasoline-only versions of the same models. There may be a serious argument for people who don't need long range (for example those buying a second car) to forego the engine altogether and just get an electric vehicle with a little longer range, but if ~200 miles isn't enough range for you then just go with the hybrid.

gaganyaan 5y ago
Ugh, no thanks. You can keep your dinosaurs. I've been full EV for several years now, and I can't fathom going back. Also, winter is a non-issue. Take it from someone living where it gets quite cold. Time to put aside your toys and embrace the future :)
- anaganisk 5y ago
  No way are we going to have battery powered cars as a future. Its just shifting the problem from consumer side (ICE pollution) to(Battery) production side. Also many countries still use coal etc to produce power. Fuel cells are the true future.

tomohawk 5y ago

It's good to see some progress in this area, but Can it do that after 5 years of use? At 5 degrees F? Can it charge in 5 minutes? Even the cheapest gas powered cars can do this. This sort of performance may not matter to you if you only commute to work and back, but its the kind of performance that many people need on a day-to-day basis.

_robbywashere 5y ago

Interested in the longevity and how it compares to existing