Extended Battery Gone?

[phidauex]

Haha, again, agree to disagree. You’re going far too extreme, untruthfully so, on the correction.

NMC voltage at 5-15% SoC is approx the same as LFP voltage at 100% SoC. So to keep NMC at or below LFP from a voltage perspective, you’d have to have an 85%-95% top-end buffer.

Not sure why you’re talking about stationary energy storage systems: we’re talking about vehicles. Not only are LFP batteries safer if manufactured to the same quality standards while stationary (duh), they’re also MUCH safer when physically damaged by an external source.

Even in apples-to-apples comparisons on cycle life, ie defining as 70% retention of capacity for both, LFP excels in cycle life, and it ain’t even close. Sure, maybe you can find a no-name absolute 💩 LFP cell that underperforms a current-gen brand-name NMC cell in this regard, but Gotion is a known quantity.

Look, I'll let it go, the original question was whether the current 205 mi range should be compared to the original 240 * 80% = 192 mi, and I don't believe that is an accurate comparison, and that comes from direct industry experience with all of the manufacturers being discussed here.

I did place a pre-order, and I'm happy with the Gotion selection. I would have taken a longer range NMC option if available, but this still meets my needs, and it is certainly an upgrade for people considering the original 150 mi range option.

 

[GrizzlysGhost]

You all be like:

Meanwhile me:

 

[SparkYellow]

I wonder how Slate was able to switch from SK ON to Gotion. There must have been an agreement when SK ON was chosen last year. 😳

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is charge cycling more important in stationary or mobile applications? I mean, both get cycled but I suspect that the stationary use case can be better designed and built to address degradation.

 

[ryun]

Because of that, the range narrative isn’t simply “FALSE”, it’s overstated. The real distinction isn’t that NMC can’t hit 100%, it’s that doing it daily costs NMC more than it costs LFP. An LFP owner can routinely charge to 100% with little penalty (and is told to, for calibration); an NMC owner doing the same daily pays a bit more in degradation. So in practice LFP owners do get easier access to the full pack day-to-day. The “marketing judo” framing has a kernel of truth, but it’s not pure spin. The calibration need and the tolerance advantage both exist at once.

I think your thoughts were well put but I still disagree with this section. I would argue that it's more false than overstated because charging daily to 100% for LFP requires more nuance. If you're going from 50% to 100% daily in an LFP car than the latest research points out that is less of a hit because LFP likes these deep charge cycles. But if you're charging your LFP EV up from 95% to 100% everyday then these shallow charging cycles will put more strain on the battery.

Ultimately I really do think this whole argument of LFP v. NMC when it comes to effective range is nonsense for the average driver. The general practice of charging to something under 100% prevails regardless of battery chemistry if your sole goal is prolonging the life of the battery.

But as drivers, we have more needs than babying our batteries. Just charge to whatever you feel comfortable with. If keeping it 100% is how you rest easy at night knowing you have that extra range then just charge to 100%. My personal calculus involves having this truck last as long as possible and 80% is plenty for me and my needs (I travel maybe 5 miles per day anymore). Your warranty will last 8 years minimum and battery prices are coming down everyday.

To reiterate to anyone reading that's new to EV: 100% is not good for batteries. Not for LFP or NMC chemistries. But your battery is highly unlikely to fail you regardless of how you treat it for the lifetime of the car.

 

[phidauex]

In my head while reading all of this:

Meanwhile me:

Not at all inaccurate, haha.

 

[B1050]

We all know that carrying around a battery that is too large can affect the efficiency. But What about an add-on battery that sits in the bed just for the longer trips? The size of a large suitcase maybe 50 lbs. A weather proof connector and some tie down points and then It would only be lugged around when you needed it. It could double as a energy storage generator type thing when not in use in the truck.

 

[E90400K]

So the original thread were I complaind about this got locked. So I'll say here what I said there.

Dammit! There'no long-range version. 205 miles isn't enough for me. Winter range will be even worse.

I wanted this so bad and would've paid for the bigger battery. Why, Slate? Why?

I still say 205 miles was always in play simply because the 150-mile battery was not going to meet CARB Advanced Clean Car II regs. California will be Slate's largest market, it had no choice but offer the Base Slate at 205 miles.

 

[RevMS]

Real world use of a 250 mile NMC pack is almost identical to - and perhaps a bit less than - a 205 mile LFP pack

 

[smack daddy]

But when it is all said and done it will still only be around 180 miles in the real world the epa figures are wrong now if they had used the European figures those are always closer to real world numbers

 

[Rocks]

Fast chargers start getting grumpy around the 80% mark. Sometimes it's the dispenser adding a congestion fee. Sometimes it's the other people waiting.

So leaving a dcfc at 80% == ~165mi to zero. That's at best 75mi out and back with no charge at the far end. This is the bingo line math that makes me think that I may have gifted slate $300.

 

[LevelHeaded]

But when it is all said and done it will still only be around 180 miles in the real world the epa figures are wrong now if they had used the European figures those are always closer to real world numbers

Huh? WLTP always exceeds EPA. If you think EPA is overly-optimistic, WLTP is even more so.

 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

It’s funny the continued negative insistence on longer range. This truck (for now) is not designed for daily highway trips. If that math is your primary concern, you may also need to plan for 4 doors, because the design of this vehicle clearly demonstrates its purpose. It’s not meant for long trips and it’s not a family sedan. Those customers may truly need to look elsewhere.

 

[GrizzlysGhost]

It’s funny the continued negative insistence on longer range. This truck (for now) is not designed for daily highway trips. If that math is your primary concern, you may also need to plan for 4 doors, because the design of this vehicle clearly demonstrates its purpose. It’s not meant for long trips and it’s not a family sedan. Those customers may truly need to look elsewhere.

Agree. I'm maybe in the small number of folks who feel that 205 miles is WAY more than I need, and I'm grateful

 

[Liontracks]

Although this truck has less range than my current EV, I very rarely do highway driving and only do a roadtrip once a year. I’ve just used the roadtrip to take my time and actually enjoy the ride instead of rushing to get to my destination.