The second-generation Blade battery can charge from 10-70% in just about five minutes and from 10-97% in under 10 minutes. More impressively, the company showcased the battery charging flawlessly from 20-97% at -22°F (-30°C) in just about 12 minutes, only around three minutes slower than it charges in normal temperatures.
…
The EV was plugged in at 9% state of charge with 93 kilometers of range (57 miles). In 9 minutes and 51 seconds, it charged up to 97% with the range prediction in their gauge cluster displaying 1,008 kilometers (626 miles). This is likely calibrated for the China Light-Duty Test Cycle (CLTC), which tends to be more optimistic than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) test cycle in the U.S.
Still, these charging speeds are way faster than the 20-40 minute charging stops on the latest EVs in the U.S. The new BYD EVs can basically recharge in nearly the same time it takes to refill a gas car. Even the new 1,500 kilowatt (1.5 megawatt) Flash charging stations are arranged like a traditional gas station for cars to quickly drive in and drive out.
Those are some impressive numbers but I’m skeptical of anything China claims about their own tech. I don’t doubt their battery tech is great but I’ve seen so many AI/CGI videos of their humanoid robots doing crazy shit and people online are eating it up.
I bet they actually have incentives to create better technology.
can charge from 10-70% in just about five minutes
Why is that always a metric? Yeah, with a tiny battery or a kilowatt line maybe.
More important is the cycle count.
Edit: btw, why don’t charging stations have a supercapacitor?Cycle count is important for the lifetime estimate on the battery, how long before you have to spend a large portion of the cost of the car on replacing / refurbishing a key component.
“Fill up” time is the most obvious and common ‘maintenance’ anyone will ever do on their vehicle. One of the biggest objections large swaths of the population have about EVs is/was that could take an hour or more for each stop on a long road trip or if you can’t charge at home. (apartment / street parking / etc.) They usually do 10-70%r 80 or whatever because the speed trails off exponentially closer to 100%. (logarithmically? whichever.)
Because discharging 100kw of energy quickly would be dangerous.
Makes sense. Also still a fat wire needed.
and an external cooling system because moving that much energy makes heat.
China has also implemented the world’s most stringent standards for battery safety. They require automakers to ensure that batteries don’t catch fire or explode for at least two hours after a single cell enters thermal runaway. If it does go ablaze, Chinese automakers are experimenting with some unusual ways of protecting the car and occupants from the battery fire.
I like it way more than charging speeds. But also - I’m interested in how many recharge cycles they supposedly can live through, and that’s not in the article.
Is it really even a road trip if there is no chance of the vehicle catching fire or exploding? Sounds boring TBH.
Charge time sounds great, but what about the number of charge cycles (I.e. longevity), the article did not mention that.
They don’t mention it, but I highly suspect its actually not significant.
I used to think fast charging did the same thing, but it turns out that even the heaviest wattage implementations have negligible effects on cycles and health.
As long as your driver is smart enough to control or manipulate the voltage at certain capacities (<15% and >85%), the higher power won’t affect the cell quality.
You are correct. This is for phones, where it is worse than for EVs, but:
As long as your driver is smart enough to control or manipulate the voltage at certain capacities
I feel like this is the important detail here…
When buying a car, you can’t have a clue whether that is the case.
I used to believe fast charging is harmless in phones too. It isn’t. I charge my phone only to 80%, and not daily. I haven’t lost a single % of battery health in almost a year. Meanwhile my friends charge to 100% and very often, always on fast charging. I got a friend to install accubattery to check their health and it was at 93% after only about 1.5 years.
Tl;dr: I suspect the driver will be dogshit and cause batteries to get destroyed in anything but the flagship car models to increase battery service revenue BY A LOT…
Do I understand correctly - you charge to 80%, have zero degradation, but also only use 80% of your battery at most because of that.
Your fast-charging friend, meanwhile, has been using all 100% down to 93% battery for these 1.5 years. Maybe, in a bad scenario his battery will degrade to 80% in 1-2 years and he’ll start using only 80% of his like you?
Where’s the upside in this, unless you’re both planing to use same phone in e.g. 5 years and you might get ahead in battery capacity finally?
Every time I’ve seen someone test this hypothesis - as in doing a long-term experiment with the specific purpose of testing whether fast charging harms battery health - the result has come back that it doesn’t make much deference at all
It’s also worth pointing out that every battery is different and apps like Accubattery are imprecise. It’s entirely possible that your 100% and your friend’s 93% are actually exactly the same. It’s also possible that their battery would have displayed 93% when brand new
I crossreferenced my testing a lot though I cant 100% guarantee what I found is accurate.
Though I can say this: I don’t think built-in health monitors in phones are worth a damn. My gran’s phone was showing at 100% health when accubattery was at a whopping 73%. Testing the old and new battery, the new battery held up just about 30% more time than the old one on youtube playback.
I did other things that I wont get into
This is why I chose to trust accubattery and pretty much invalidate other testing in my head. I know it’s one single test and sample but this is my information and I trust it at lleast for now.
93% after 1.5 years works just fine for most users who do not prioritize longevity or sustainability over convenience, unfortunately.
Some phones get over 70° while fast charging, which is not helathy for the battery first.
Who spends 12 minutes putting petrol in their car?
Given the responses and the downvotes i can only assume that people have misunderstood the post. I’m not saying “electric bad because long change time“. I’m responding to the claim in the article that it takes the same amount of time as refuelling a combustion engine. This is not true
The only Fast Charging most EV owners do is on road trips. The rest is more like plugging your cell phone in while you sleep. So the relevant comparison is: how long do you usually stop for a bio-break & snack+checkout. I wish I could get the family in and out a convenience store as fast as the EV6 charges (though it’s much slower than Blade2’s high-speed charge).
Of course, most petrol users fuel-up weekly in the USA, so the petrol car is starting each road trip at a disadvantage. If you fuel-up with petrol for 4 minutes, 4x/month, and road-trip 1x/month, then the petrol car starts each road trip 16 minutes behind.
Don’t worry about down votes, this isn’t reddit. That said, useful context from the article is always helpful to prompt meaningful discussion.
Oh, i don’t care. It was just a cute that maybe i should have quoted the sentence i was referencing
Who spends 12 minutes putting petrol in their car?
A lot of people plug in the gas hose, then waddle into the station for delicious sushi, case of beer, rotary hot dog. Lot longer than 12 minutes before they waddle back out again.
I don’t have a gas station on my garage wall.
I’ll spend 12 minutes waiting so I’m not dependant on gas prices and to reduce emissions.
Is the average overweight American F150 driver really so much quicker? You need to consider them getting out of the car, pumping gasoline, waddling inside to pay, waddling back, climbing into the truck all without dying of a heart attack or shortness of air.
Who said racism can’t be funny?
F150 drivers are a race?
5 minutes to get it to 70% capacity, with a battery that drives several hundred miles on a charge.
But if you’re at the mall and there’s a charging station, you can plug it in and refill it while you do your shopping.
There is no incentive for US companies to improve their products when they are protected from market forces by import restrictions.
You do realise China also have very high tariffs? And pump hundreds of billions dollars in incentives into their industries.
you saying the US government does not hand out billions to Detroit at the Federal and state levels?
Yes, of course. A larger point that I’ve tried to make is that when China interferes with the market, they do it in a way that improves Chinese products, lowers prices for consumers. Conversely, when the US interferes with the market they increase prices, reduce consumer options, and reduces the quality of products.
What US companies? Only three remain (GM, Ford, Tesla) and they make up a fraction of sales here in the US. The Chinese government is dumping truckloads of money into subsidies and development, control nearly all rare earth minerals, and don’t shy away from environmental disasters and human rights abuses which is why they’re the only nation on the planet that’s able to develop this rapidly and sell their vehicles for way less than anyone else on the planet. Once they control everything you can kiss those low prices and rapid development goodbye, but you’ll still buy from them because nobody else will be left standing.
Only three remain (GM, Ford, Tesla) and they make up a fraction of sales here in the US.
Maybe stop selling garbage?
Don’t forget Dodge, speaking of garbage…
They did stop selling garbage which is precisely why they’ve almost completely left the passengar car market in favor of trucks and SUVs, which sell like hot cakes.
Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep is owned by Stellantis which is based in the Netherlands. They haven’t been an American company for quite some time now.
A loss of overall competitiveness of the local companies is actually a well known and studied problem with using tariffs and import restrictions to protects said local companies.
So any competent government which desires for their local companies to survive and prosper will seek different ways to strengthen then which don’t suffer from that problem. The Chinese government is doing just that, the US government is not.
By all indications, US politicians are spectacularly incompetent and/or are following a strategy of burning the future of US companies for a short term boost in the money they yield for current CxOs and investors.
But what about the majority of cars sold in the US which belong to foreign manufacturers, and what’s your answer for why none of those nations are able to compete with what China is doing either?
Apparently no other government in the entire world is “competent” by your standards, or perhaps it’s about one nation leveraging their position and influence in order to build a monopoly and not about competency at all.
I can tell you that, at least for Europe, they’re doing pretty much the same thing as the US, only it’s higher tariffs rather than blocking the Chinese products.
The effect of special protectionist tariffs on the competitiveness of local companies might not be as strong as for outright blocking of the competing foreign products, but it’s in the same direction, which is why recently even Tesla (which are shit at the actual building cars part of the business) were wiping the floor on EVs with massive European car making businesses which had enormous expertise in actually making cars and decades to evolve EV tech and failed to do so.
If all that is true, then the US should subsidize US ev’s to the point where they are price competitive and open the market to competition where US manufacturers can market against the environmental and human right issues with their Chinese competitors. That would put competitive pressure on Chinese manufacturers to clean up their supply chains and consumers worldwide would benefit.
Who’s going to build them though? GM and Ford have almost completely eliminated producing vehicles that aren’t SUVs and trucks because nobody was buying them and Tesla is floundering with a Nazi leading the company. Most people are buying German, Japanese, or South Korean cars and they aren’t able to compete against China either for all the aforementioned reasons.
The fact that nobody else in the entire world can match what they’re doing despite hundreds and hundreds of collective years building and selling cars should clue you in to what’s happening. It’s like saying a city should subsidize their local general store to compete against Walmart and wondering why nobody is doing just that.
At that point you’re having tax payers subsidize failing businesses that only try to collect profits over innovation. Giving more money from the poor to the rich.
Not to mention how hard you’d have to subsidize. Aside from the huge amount of money in constructing plants capable of building like China, you’d be subsidizing pay differences to a huge degree. Automakers in the US average around $30 US an hour. Chinese average $3.75 US an hour. Our two economies can’t really play together that well because the differences are so massive.
Tax the fuck out of the rich on anything over like $1.5 million a year, and close all the loopholes and the problems fix themselves. The rich and the corrupt government our the problem.
Right there on the top of Mount should. But we’ve seen the self destructive nature of my country and elected leaders.
I really think the fact that China controls the vast majority of the rare earths is grossly understated when discussing the explosion of electric vehicles there. The US recently discovered a huge volcanic lithium deposit, but I suspect that there’s a lot of gallium going into the Chinese batteries that the US just doesn’t have access to.
seems like western countries are rolling back ev development in favor of gas/ice cars.
Good. It will hasten their long overdue demise.
When carbon is added to the atmosphere every living being pays the price.
They’re fully in thrall to market forces. Those forces simply dictate that they lobby for protected markets. It’s far cheaper to buy off a lobbyist than to build a cutting edge battery factory
“Burning the future of the company for extra personal upsides in the short term” is pretty much MBA-Age management strategy summarized in one sentence.
Makes me think about the third-rate makers whose EV batteries consist of nothing but hundreds or thousands of LiPo cells soldered together then packed in a plastic container.
Isn’t that just a modern Tesla at this point?
I saw one of those videos, with batteries from vapes, but it wasn’t about saying “look at this cool battery I made”, but rather about saying “look at the waste of throwing away vapes with rechargeable batteries”.
Yeah, I oppose the sale of disposable vapes on the grounds of it being a fucking batshit use of resources. I miss when vapes were usually those repairable and upgradable things that you poured juice into. I didn’t vape then or now, but it just seems better for everyone for it to be that way.
15 years ago it was a revolutionary idea
[…] only around three minutes slower than it charges in normal temperatures.
No. The cold tests starts at 20% and the normal test at 10%. My guess is that charging from 10-20% at -30 C takes a lot longer. Still a good battery, but they’re fudging the numbers here.
True, but I don’t need to charge at -30C, and this thing charges FAST.
I do need to charge at those temps. Not all of us live in warm climates.
Wow. I think if I lived in that sort of climate I might not be driving an electric car. But I also think the likelihood of me moving to a climate that hostile is low. Keep safe out there!
if I lived in that sort of climate I might not be driving an electric car.
People living in -30°C don’t necessarily do so all year round. The temperature varies between -30 and +30 during the full year where I live. Our EVs handle it just fine, even for long trips. 👍👍
A fossil fuel car also consumes more gas in cold temperatures, as far as I’ve understood. Doesn’t stop anyone in colder climate from using a car at all.
wtf is that headline. Its a nice improvement but I wouldnt go that far. Its 5-10mins afters and has a better operating temp(allegedly) and ~10-20% extra range. Its nice but the gap isnt that huge.
So is being claimed
Let’s just say that China (or hell, companies in general) has a habit of great claims. I’ll believe it when I see it
Well, you can’t see it, because the US won’t let you buy one
Not everyone lives in the US, though
And it won’t matter, I wouldn’t buy one because the Chinese government, like the US government, is evil as fuck and wants to control every fucking move of every fucking person
But having said all that: I still don’t believe this crap either because big claims require big evidence, to put it very simple
Right, because China is known to be king of tariff free imports and free trade.
US-centrism?
Which is quite telling, to me.
