Jaguar Says That EV Battery Size Has Peaked and Will Begin to Shrink


Jaguar’s Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart told us all the reasons why the best electric cars will soon have smaller battery packs.

When it comes to the size of electric car batteries, bigger is always better. Or so I thought until I spoke on Monday with Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart, technical design director for Jaguar Land Rover. He believes that the auto industry’s feverish race to increase the size of electric car battery packs—to thereby pump up driving range—will soon be over.

“I believe that 90 to 100 kilowatt-hours is the peak,” said Dr. Ziebart, pointing to the Jaguar I-Pace and its 90-kWh battery pack, which is officially rated to go 240 miles on a single charge. “In the future, it won’t make sense to install bigger batteries.” We caught up with Dr. Ziebart last week in Redwood City, Calif., a day before the kickoff of the Jaguar Electrified Experience, a multi-city tour to introduce the I-Pace to American consumers.

Dr. Ziebart is not saying that capable EVs—like the 90-kWh Jaguar I-Pace or Tesla’s 100-kWh vehicles—will have less driving range in the future. Not at all.

But he believes that EV batteries can get smaller while offering the same amount of range because the energy density of batteries is increasing at a rate of about five percent every year. (Energy density is a measure of the kilowatt-hour capacity per unit of weight.)

Dr. Ziebart explained that the cost per kilowatt-hour of EV batteries is also dropping, in this case, by about 10 percent every year. These trends might lead you to believe that automakers will start supersizing their battery packs.

Instead, Dr. Ziebart told us, EV batteries will become smaller—for yet another reason. “When you have a better-developed charging infrastructure, then you won’t need such big batteries,” he said. “This is coming within five years. The average size of the battery will be smaller than it is in the I-Pace.” Imagine this future coming soon: smaller, lighter, less expensive battery packs with ubiquitous opportunities to recharge.

Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart, technical design director for Jaguar Land Rover

Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart, technical design director for Jaguar Land Rover

Some folks might argue that you need big batteries to deliver serious bursts of power—like the oomph I experienced last week on a rip-roaring 100-mile trip through California wine country in a gorgeous 2019 I-Pace HSE. Dr. Ziebart believes that engineers can modify battery chemistry to achieve targets for both power and energy. “The size of the active particles on the electrodes create the characteristics of the cell,” he explained.

Given the I-Pace’s ability to deliver 300 kilowatts (400 horsepower) for sustained periods of about 10 seconds, I was surprised to learn that the electric Jag’s cell chemistry was primarily configured for its energy-storage capabilities—not for acceleration. (By the way, I don’t recommend flooring the I-Pace for 10 seconds unless you are on a track.)

So while the 2019 I-Pace’s battery, sized to 90 kilowatt-hours, can provide more power than you could ever practically use—and 240 miles of range—electric cars in the near future will grant the same capacity with, say, an 80 or 70 kilowatt-hour battery.

For the past few years, the benchmark for technology supremacy among EVs has been more kilowatt-hours. But the best EVs will soon go further and faster with fewer kWh.

Categories: Jaguar

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

137 Comments on "Jaguar Says That EV Battery Size Has Peaked and Will Begin to Shrink"

newest oldest most voted
(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Battery capacity isn’t the main driver for big or small packs. It’s cost. If a 60kWh pack costs as much as an 80kWh pack, consumers will opt of the 80kWh pack.

His point is once charging infrastructure is widespread, and charging times drop to reasonable levels, consumers won’t see a benefit above the 90-100kwh pack size, therefore they won’t pay for a larger pack beyond that. And many will opt for smaller packs (my guess is in the 60-75kwh range) for typical cars.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

We’re still in the infancy of EV’s When the standard size SUV’s and pickups are out, packs will be in the range of 120kWh.+

Roadster is rumored to have a 200kWh pack.

200kWh is not really there for range, it’s for performance.

Of course, in the “Ultimate Performance Smack Down” goal of the New Roadster, the 200 kWh Battery (in the Base Model!), also gives the Roadster more than 100 miles MORE RANGE, than the Buggati Chiron, at 620 miles, vs some 435 miles, Or so

I think you’re confusing miles with Kms. The Chiron is capable in mixed driving of 444 Km. In mile/gal it is rated at 11 MPG, and who would want to drive that far in one of those?

Ahhhh…OK! 444 Kms or just 277.5 Miles, vs 620! (But, it can gas up real quick, right!?!)

As to going the distance in one, is it really that uncomfortable or obnoxious to drive?

Who wants to drive long distance in a roadster

Depends on the road. Blue Ridge Parkway? Yes please!

The roadster Is Roomy & Comfortable inside With Excellent Front Seating . I would drive it long Distance..

Because high mass is what a roadster is all about..? The most successful roadster ever made is without a doubt the Miata/MX-5. It’s not very powerful, but it’s light and agile and that’s what makes it great.

It’s not “rumoured”, it’s official. Even with Tesla there’s a difference.

Typical compact cars have 10-12 gallon gas tanks, midsize cars are around 14-16, and pickups can have over 30 gallons.

The compact Hyundai Kona does well with 64 kwh, a midsize car might top out at 90 kwh, and a pickup would probably need 180-200 kwh.

Adding a larger gas tank doesn’t increase the cost of the car that much. Also, gas cars can’t charge at home, so it is convenient to carry around a week’s worth of energy.

It is if you charge from your roof top solar panels and can run your house in an emergency.

I had a VW Caravelle with a 160 liter cruiser tank. Could drive about 1800km before I had to refuel. Then came the shock.. it supported high speed truck fueling, and those 3 minutes of fueling was super expensive. About $2 a liter x 160 liter = $320. When you pay that amount quite often, you just hope the first electric vans come, at a price you want to pay.

Pickup trucks will definately need a larger capacity battery for towing and high mileage. I knew paving contractor that used to fill up his F-250 twice a day, drove 600-700 miles easy. A 200kwh battery might not even cover that.

When did that guy actually work? I mean, 10-12 hours of highway driving (600-700 miles) is a long commute.
I would expect an abundant number of paving jobs in a 50 mile radius of the company base, otherwise the business model is flawed.

I drove for a living and usually put on 200+ miles a day. Maybe 25 deliveries a day taking probably 45 minutes in total, out of the vehicle. So yes that guy is doing nothing but driving.

A lot of pickups do long distances. My old one put on 130,000 miles in two years as some sort of fleet truck (>300 miles a week day) prior to my purchasing it and my next door neighbor used to do an 8 hour drive twice a week to and from his worksite in his company one. For a paving guy that does seem silly though, although perhaps he was in sales?

Wrong, because math. 50*5*300*2 = 150,000, so 130k in two years is less than 300 miles/day, not more.

A 200 kWh Pickup might have a hard time driving 350+ miles per charge, but if not towing should do about 300, with some Aero Improvements, like a Smooth Underbody, and better Wheel Well designs. More extreme Aero “Could” be used to push it to 350 miles.

See for some sources on the subject, and my experience with a Aerocap on my 2008 Dodge Dakota, even without the smooth and flat Belly Pan!

A previous owner of my old pickup built something similar for his F-150, it’s still hanging in our garage. He claimed it reduced his fuel consumption a couple of l/100km. I used it a few times (it was a great camper shell) but never saw much difference in fuel economy.

Well, I could tow my 2,000 Lb Electric Firefly behind it, (
and still only use about 1 Litre per 100 Km Over Stock Spec’s, and I think I listed my Fuel Ecinomy on the Blog I Linked, for my trip to Oshkosh for EAA Air Venture!

600 – 700 miles = 10 – 15 hours per day. A big piece out of the day?

That’s because none of those vehicles can fuel up which sitting in your garage or, if you are fortunate, while at work. You need those large tanks because nobody wants to stop by a gas station every couple of days.

He might also see Automakers rediscovering better Aerodynamics, as a means to more range, and higher strength materials leading to lighter vehicle shells, or bodies, helping extend range, too!

And lighter cars. Who wants and Ice with a 30 gallon tank?

Do Not Read Between The Lines

He’s wrong. They’ll buy bigger vehicles, with bigger packs and the same range.

I agree but the average pack will be far smaller as future EVs will need no more than 200 mile range and that is easily done under 50kwh.
Why is they’ll learn like Tesla making lighter weight, more aero cut battery size in proportion.
And when they go composite monocoque bodies that cuts weight, pack size by 40 and 30% while being stronger, more safe.
The other thing is how many will switch to unde4r 1k lbs EVs? They are low cost to buy, run and need tiny packs to go 200 miles on just 22kwh with margin.
Though most will have like 11kwh packs for 100+ mile range.
So for size of pack for power, I have Chevy Volt packs that put out 300kw in just 16kwh. As they said, power is how they are built, not much else.

At the same time a smaller pack will always be cheaper than an bigger one so I don’t understand your logic.

The lower the cost per kWh, the less extra it costs to have a big battery.

But I think he’s right as a general trend. Most people aren’t interested in performance beyond what any 30 kWh pack can easily handle, and with better infrastructure and faster-charging packs they’ll choose very minor and infrequent inconvenience, and a dollop of cash, over a give battery pack that just adds weight 98% of the time.

Yes, there are exceptions aplenty. That’s why I said “most people”.

Yes, and people will always choice the car they get for free insted of paying $60k!

If that was true only small cheap cars would sell.

I mean this is most apparent with the Model 3, providing 310+ miles of range on a 75kWh battery, able to recharge at well over 120kW and with a minimum cost of $44,000 (only available at $49k rn obviously). But the energy density here is increased, not decreased and it also has a lot to do with the size of the car being smaller.

$50,200 obviously.

” energy density of batteries is declining” should read “energy density of batteries is increasing.” I mean, that would be a step backwards, right?

I think if I were to write this up, I’d talk about the size, not total energy, more clearly.

Fixed. Thanks!

Once there are plugs at most destinations, and/or ultra fast charging everywhere the pack capacity hit its peak.Until then, I think pack capacity will rise until the real world range is 300 miles, in weather that is in the extremes – hot or cold. This will happen for the top end cars and cars intended for more family trips. Lower end cars may have fast charging but will have less capacity to keep costs down.

“because the energy density of batteries is declining at a rate of about five percent every year”

Increasing, not declining. (That’d be pretty weird if it was declining — people forgetting how to make good batteries? The laws of physics changing over time?)

Comment above, responded to by Steven Loveday: “Fixed”, so, yup, corrected now!

I sat in a bright red Jaguar I-Pace at a Jaguar owners event in Red Hook, Brooklyn last year. It was just stunning. Can not wait to take one for a spin. If only it was available with a manual transmission like my current vehicle!

I imagine it’s not an automatic transmission… it’s probably single speed, right?

Hopefully he was joking?

Um, that technology is obsolete with all but the 200 mph+ EVs. That said, I’ve had a fun ride in an electric Mazda Miata which had an integrated transmission, but it was a custom build, obviously. The guy had a great sense of humor: he replaced the tailpipe with a J-1772 connector.

Drive a Miata (or Fiat 124) without a manual transmission? Assume this person drinks grape Kool-Aid in a fine steakhouse instead of a fine wine.

Bruce, do you understand EVs? They don’t need transmissions at all for normal driving, even spirited driving. Single speed is all you need

He said “Integrated Transmission”, not ‘Automatic Transmission’, because it was an EV Conversion (“Custom Built”, he said)!

Manuals make the EV Cinversion process simpler, since no “Idle Mode” is needed!

Dr. Z’s claim does seem sound for nearly all passenger vehicles that are mid size suv n smaller and non performance variants. Obviously the big tank SUVs carrying 8 or more people and those high performance vehicles that want speed at any cost will have options over 100kwh packs.

Many folk wanting, or only needing, a small car bev would pleased now with just 50kwh pack in the Hyundai ioniq ev. That combo should be able to travel at least 220 miles for many thousands less than any other 200+ mile range bev.

Herr Doktor has shot himself in his foot: The iPace is highly inefficient compared to most EVs, Model X included. They should have done better.

Base Model 3 is estimated, or speculated, to be 55 kWh for 220 Miles Range, so 50 kWh doing 220 Miles in the Ioniq, would be something! But it would likely not accelerate as fast, or drive as fast at top speed, thus making do with those 5 kWh less!

Hmm, if Ioniq keeps it’s current efficiency, a 64kWh battery like the one from Kona could actuallt get 285 mile range. That’s right up there with Tesla in terms of range.

The Ioniq has a super-efficient powertrain… with a super-low performance and (so far as I know) by far the worst 0-60 time of any highway-capable BEV sold in first-world countries.

That’s okay for those who want that sort of thing, but let’s not pretend that such a low performance vehicle is ever going to start a trend. The classic VW Beetle was a popular car, but was never imitated. Plus, even the Beetle got one or two upgrades in horsepower over the years.

Well, they could put the 64kWh battery in, and also put in the more powerful Kona motor. Since most of a vehicle’s efficiency is from aero anyways, the more powerful motor wouldn’t really reduce efficiency by a lot. Probably would still get 275 to 280 miles out of that battery. Again, Tesla-like range numbers, and probably somewhere around 7 second 0-60 times.

I have had my Ioniq for almost a year now, passed 33,000 kms today. While hp is only 118, torque is 218 lb-ft, and instant. I am not trying to kid myself, this is no sports car, but it is still fun, and I can take almost any 4 cylinder off the line, most by a large margin. Your comparison to a VW wiith 48 hp and 73 lb-ft isn’t quite accurate. If the Ioniq becomes the new bottom line in performance, it will be a huge upgrade for many people from a lot of what is on the roads.

By this same logic, gas cars would have a maximum range of ~200 miles. They don’t. I can’t think of any that gets under 300 miles, and 400, 500, or even 600 miles seem not uncommon.

Yes, but it costs $5 and 50 lb weight penalty to increase a gas car range from 250 to 350 miles. For a BEV it costs $5000 and 500 lb to accomplish the same thing.

So what you are basically saying, is that CURRENT BATTERIES SUCK. They are GOBS (technical term) better than they used to be, at least price wise (I figure I paid around $50,000 for the 53 kwh battery in my Roadster), but there is still much needed improvement in weight and cost for the anticipated batteries of the future.

And the “Hand Built” 70 kWh Replacement Pack for your 1st Roadster, was about $30,000.00, so that too was a step forward, since 2 of those cost about $60,000 for 140 kWh, and 3 x 53 kWh was 159 kWh for $150,000, only about 5 years or so, earlier!
(Or 3 x 70 kWh = 210 kWh @ $90,000 vs $200,000 for 4 x 53 kWh = 212 kWh!)

I wonder if they could design another Roadster Replacement Pack, using the 2170 Cells, and offer 85 kWh for $20,000? That would say a lot about how far costs have come down!

Being able to swap the electronics for new ones, that delivered higher power, and Supercharger Access, for under $10,000.00, as an extra offer, would be one heck of a thank you to early Roadster byers, too, since for the price of the last offering of $30,000 that would give them another 65 or so miles range, putting it solidly at about 400 miles per charge, and with Supercharger Access, could do “Cannonball Runs” accross the USA more Effectively!

Musk said supercharger access would never happen for the roadster – few roadster owners want it anyway. Those that are left want Power Equipment Modules that are reliable. That currently is a work in progress.

…and over time, as battery prices continue to drop rapidly, average capacity and average range will continue to climb, just as they are already doing, until the average BEV has 300+ miles of range… just like nearly all gasmobiles.

Gas cars can’t refill at home. So it is for added convenience that they can carry a week’s worth of fuel around with them.

I cannot charge at home.

Around 30-50% in europe can not charge at Home.

That clearly isn’t in Europe. There is no space for such a huge walkway.

Households with more than one EV cannot charge all of them at home.

That is not true at all. I have two and charge both every night.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

A lower Kwh battery pack only makes sense in a couple of scenarios:
– More efficient electric cars that can squeeze more range out of lower power batteries
– Fast charging to 80% in under 10 minutes becomes available

Without those two things, I have a hard time believing that people will continue to adopt EVs with smaller power capacities. In the US, frankly, you’d need to sell EVs with a range of about 500 miles to win over the people who think they need that range for the ocassional road trip.

Add a third scenario – dynamic charging made available on our interstates and major state highways.

“dynamic charging”: Probably coming first for large Trucks, Simi’s, if I read the Releases & announcements right!

Ron Swanson's Mustache

Given the state of American infrastructure, it’s more likely that we’ll see cars powered by unicorn farts than that.

Yup. “Dynamic charging” on public roads is right up there with “solar roadways” and fool cell cars.

There will be a sweet spot for a given effiency. For small efficient vehicles I could see it being in the 75-90 range. That gives 200+ mile range in all weather. For pickups and large SUV’s I would guess it will be 200+ to have decent cold weather range while towing. It will be different sized batteries for different vehicles, because big vehicles are not as efficient.

I think this is why we don’t have ev pickups today. The required battery size is just not economical yet. To have a similar range of my E350 which has a 35 gallon tank you would need a 350-400kwh pack. Not that economical with today’s battery costs.

This is also likely why Elon Speaks of “A Pickup that Can Carry A Pickup”, so a downsized Semi Derivative, as a first ‘Non Semi’ Truck, to target! Since a bigger 300-400 kWh Battery in such a Truck can give 3 things: Good Range, Good Power, and On Site Power!

Once that is moving 50,000 to 100,000 units a year, an F150 Level Truck can be Introduced, at a more viable cost!

100 kWh is the absolute minimum for small cars.

Intresting article, i beleive ive heard much like this from Elon earlier. Batterys will always be a tradeoff between range, Power density, charging speed, weight, Cost and So one. I think the future will bring us more kWh in the same size packs- one Day we can enjoy more than 1000km/600miles..

Per “one Day we can enjoy more than 1000km / 600miles.”, Coming in the New Roadster, circa 2020-2021, or so!
(620 Miles base Range, offered!)

I agree with him wholehartedly. We are all headed to a world where most of us will not own cars. The fleet of self driving Lyft and Uber’s will not need 300 miles of range, 200 maybe. After it’s shift, it’ll go to a parking space and charge itself using an induction coil.

For commuter vehicles, some second family vehicles, and perhaps for primary vehicles for people that live in big cities. Those people either don’t have a car anyway, or do have one and would usually be better served with public transport already – it’s not the technology that’s going to solve their cultural issue.

For primary vehicles for people that don’t live in a big city, or venture out with more “specialised” vehicles (roof racks/bike racks, families that leave stuff in the back like car seats and toys, people with pets etc), they’re still going to own their own vehicles.

That’s not to say automation won’t be a boon for most, it’s just not going to the killer app that many think it is. Most people that would be able to take advantage self driving fleets are well served with public transport or taxis/”ride sharing” already, yet they don’t use it, not because of the cost, but because of the practicality and/or mindset.

There is a population shift from rural to urban and combined with that, 20 years from now, people’s lifestyles will be very different… more akin to the rest of the 1st world urbanized areas where people don’t generally own cars, don’t shop for groceries, telecommute… etc.

That’s certainly true outside of the developed world, and is still true to an extent in the developed world but it’s mostly flattened out. You have to level that with the fact that as urbanization increases more and more people are travelling outside of cities to visit rural areas (see the increase in people visiting national parks as an example).

That’s ignoring the fact that many people (myself included) live in a city for work, but spend a lot of their free time outside of it so still need that vehicle for a weekend in the sticks, with the roof/bike rack. Add to that the fact people are still going to be having kids – and people are still going to be reticent about having to remove significant amounts of “stuff” in and out of vehicles so they don’t lose it when the rideshare goes to the next person.

I live in a city, take public transport to work, yet sill require a vehicle for my weekends, and no, something akin to a Model 3 will not be a satisfactory ride sharing vehicle to use for a couple of days every weekend.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

You can have my steering wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

“We are all headed to a world where most of us will not own cars.”

I wonder how many people who claim that most people who own cars will voluntarily give them up, have ever used a carpool to get to work and back home? Because that’s what this idea of “shared ridership” amounts to; carpooling.

Well, there’s a reason most people don’t carpool; it’s an inconvenience and it wastes your time. That’s the same reason most people are not going to give up their personal car in favor of a ride-sharing service.

History repeats itself. We came from a world where nobody owned cars.

He’s wrong, and the entire history of human behavior and patterns of consumption is my evidence. At the very top end, for a highly informed and educated clientele, he may be correct, but for the mass market? he is completely wrong. The Mass market will always simplify and demand the bigger option, even when smaller is superior. Look at camera megapixels, mostly a waste a space for worse image quality, only the ultra high end camera models have abandoned raw megapixel war in favor of lower megapixels but better images, but the mass market it’s still about buying a compact camera with 40 megapixels to replace your 20 megapixel compact camera to replace your 10 megapixel compact camera. Everyone wants the bigger number. Or just phone size, as phones get bigger they get worse, but everyone demands bigger phones. Quite simply, the idea that consumers will opt for the bare-necessity out of practicality is laughable, that’s not how the human brain works. I drive a 2014 LEAF, which has been impractical a couple times a year, every iteration of which drives my wife batty, but it’s never really bothered me, it’s the perfect car 98% of the time. But just… Read more »
Yeah, for him to say ‘Battery Sizes at 90 – 100 kwh have Peaked’ is total BS. Beyond Stupidity. If Herr Doctor hasn’t noticed, in the USA at least the MOST POPULAR vehicle is a pickup-truck which would need a 200 kwh battery to have the same Meager Range as his I-Pace. More and more articles are talking about the disappointing range of the car (considering the relatively large battery for a smallish car). More infrastructure – at least of the FAST CHARGE variety is few and far between in my area, an improvement over absolutely nothing earlier for non-tesla drivers. And even fast charging will probably be inconvenient for the vast majority of people. I usually hate stopping when driving for any reason. I know some older drivers have Prostate problems and need to stop often – but then there are not usually wash rooms at the Tesla Supercharger ( although the walk to them will probably do most Tesla owners good) – but the best solution to me, is to not have to stop AT ALL. It all boils down to the Big Experts telling the rest of us what is good for us. Fortunately, we are not… Read more »

Pickups are not the most popular vehicle type. They’re about 16% of US market. SUV or CUV is probably the most popular now, depending on where you draw the line.

So what? The most popular vehicle in the States is the Ford F-150, and for several decades it has been the sales leader among Pickup Trucks. I said nothing about ‘Vehicle Type’ – btw SUV’s are considered trucks for emissions purposes. But it changes not one iota of my totally factual commentary.

I think we can all agree that making large vehicle more efficient would certainly cut down that 200 number. And since most people aren’t out there towing long distances regularly, 200 is a bit high.

Still not sure why a larger vehicle needs close to 200. 150 perhaps but not 200 (except for towing)

My typical “Road Trip” these days is Torinto to Florida: Daytona or Orlando. I seldom do it with 1 sleep at a Hotel, it is usually 2 sleeps! On my last trip back home, I left Tampa at about 8:30 AM, and after gassing up, was on the road at 9 AM, rolling for about 3 hours at the 70 Mph Speed Limit, before stopping! So about 200-210 miles, or if in a Model 3, it would have used 70-80%, and due for a top up anyway. I usually filled at that 3 Hour stop point, and around half a tank used, unless I felt gas was cheaper an hour up the road, meaning another stop. I drove and took breaks for just over 12 hours, to Chatanooga, TN: Exit 1, for my first Sleep! 12 Hours on the road the next day, put me at Lima, OH!, for Sleep # 2, and on day 3, 8 Hours and I was home! All Easy, Peasy drives in about any current Tesla! I was driving a 2010 ICE Kia Soul. I don’t think any EV outside of a Tesla, could have keot up the same pace, due to range and infrastructure… Read more »

For cameras its easy since the price increase between a 3MP to 10 MP is like five bucks nowadays.

It’s not clear when we reach 100$/kWh and due to material cost we cant go below 60$/kwh. Yes i would pay more, for more battery. But i don’t will buy a 600miles battery for 20k$ more compared to a 300 miles battery. That would be a 80% price increase in the whole car price… Who would do that?

“…due to material cost we cant go below 60$/kwh.”

Nonsense. If you actually research the subject a bit, you find that most of what articles call “raw material costs” for batteries are actually processed material costs. Figure out how to process the material more cheaply — that could be, and likely will be, accomplished simply by improved economy of scale — and you lower the price of the battery.

Also, part of continuing improvements in batteries is figuring out how to achieve the same results with cheaper components. That’s a standard way that industries lower manufacturing costs over time. For example, battery makers have achieved much success in reducing the amount of cobalt used.

The personal computers computer will never need more then more then 640KB of RAM. 🙂

-Bill Gates

Pretty sure he said that “there will never be an application that needs more than 640 kB of RAM”

No he meant total memory.

It seems it’s actually a made up quote based on a couple of things he said, which alludes to what the quote says.

I did a lot with my Tandy TRS-80, MODEL 3, with 48 kB, 2 x 160 kB Floppy Drives, and a 12″ Monochrome Monitor!!!!

So did I, except I had 4 floppies and I had to put Gold Plugs on the Expansion Interface to make it reliable, plus put a 60 db line filter ahead of everything to keep it from rebooting every time the refrigerator started, or when someone turned on the dining room light dimmer.

Except my Trash-80 was a Model 1. It was fine for what it was, many of the ROM routines were documented and usable – (such that I was able to write a machine code Spooler to run the printer at the same time the screen was doing something else – pretty novel at the time for a toy computer), and I did an unauthorized doubling of the CPU speed from 1.78 to around 3.48 mhz.

But I do smile when a Screen Saver program today says it needs Windows 10, 5 GB free space, 2 gigs of ram.

Up voted for mentioning the Trash-80. I still have my Model 1, it still worked last time I tried it.

Also did the overclocking kit, made a huge difference!

What They Mean Is that , “Less Is More “

I must say I agree with Jaguar on this one… Based on my research, the only way EV’s will even reach 100% new-car market share is with smaller batteries. If the average EV has a ~70kWh battery, and 100% of global new car sales are BEV, then that means we will need around 6,200GWh or 6.2TWh of new battery production per year to maintain that(based on 88.1 million new cars sold in 2017). Now, here is the thing, trips over 55 miles represent only 10% of our total miles driven in our cars… Why would I lug around an extra 200 miles of battery when it will only be used 10% of the time. A much better idea would be to have only a 20kWh battery in every car, that allows between 55 and 65 miles of driving range per full charge, then you use a gas range extender that covers the rest. Now, this does not get us to 100% EV, it only gets us to 90%, but that’s okay. With only a 20kWh battery in all new cars, you only need 1,800GWh or 1.8TWh per year(based on 88.1 million new cars sold in 2017), which is actually achievable… Read more »

20 kWh are not going to cut it, otherwise the first wave of short range compliance EVs would have sold better. The initial plans for the Leaf (with the 20 kWh battery pack) targeted an annual production of 300 k after a few years ramp up. Lack in demand at that time obliterated the plans and the battery production was never scaled.
Also, if I only need it 10% of the time, why would I waste space in my vehicle to carry around a noisy polluting range extender as well as gasoline tank, exhaust system etc. That stuff affects crash properties of the vehicle, and increases maintenance cost. I prefer a bigger battery instead.

A short-range SparkEV(with 19kWh battery and 82 mile range), would have sold better if GM wanted it too. But GM didn’t care about selling it, they only built the thing because CARB said they had too. Ford Focus Electric with 73 mile range didn’t sell well because Ford didn’t want to sell it(and Focus Electric has reliability issues). These were compounded by a lack of fast-charging infrastructure and no gas range-extender. A 20kWh EV would give about 65 mile range, but if it had fast-charging(that got battery from 0 to 80% in 15 minutes), and a gas range-extender, it would sell well if it was well-advertised. And besides, in a 100% EV world, there will be a huge amount of BEV’s with 60kWh+ batteries, capable of going long distance without range extender engines, I just believe that there low-range EV’s with range-extenders will have their place as well(until a major battery breakthrough happens that allows us to build 6.2TWh of batteries every year, OR the self-driving revolution makes people give up car ownership). So, while you and I both wan’t BEV’s with long-range batteries, I can still see at least half of all cars being 20kWh plug-in hybrids. P.S. Now… Read more »
Or, make cars more trailer capable, and “Rent” a range extender for trips! A base car with 65 miles or about a 100 Kms range, with a onboard Range Extender, might apear by about 2020, and the 18.4 kWh Volt is close, at 53 miles! So, at 20 kWh, might just civer that! However, wher I work, 100’s of people drive about 80-90 Kms / 50-55 Miles, ONE WAY to work, so without workplace charging, are still atc50% or so on Gas, in that picture! Hence, first place to charge is of course, at home; BUT, Work, is really the 2nd Most Important Place to have Charging, even if not free! At present, thete is still more emphasis on “Public Charging”, and not on “Workplace Charging!” Also, being able to charge at work, might well be the only way for many folk to justify daily EV use, living in a Condo, or Apartment! 3rd, comes City Public L2 and L3 Charging, so more than hime and work trips are vuabke, for short range EV’s! Lastly, comes Inter City Fast Charging onbState and Interstate Freeways! However, since vehicles are an emotional purchase situation, the above logic gets ignored, forgotten, or just… Read more »

Or just rent an ICE or EV with a lot of range and quick charging for road trips.

“Why would I lug around an extra 200 miles of battery when it will only be used 10% of the time.”

For exactly the same reason most people “lug around” a back seat in their car, when they use it much less than 10% of the time. Because it needs to be there for when you do need it.

This is often overlooked: I use the back seat only one way on my commute, to drop the children off. Wife picks them up.Thus, neither car use the back seat more than 50% of the time, but both must have it. Same with the battery, provided it is warm outside, there are free charging spots at work I could make do with the 24kWh Leaf. But when it was cold, or the chargers are full or I needed to pick something up, I was stuck. The EV proponents will make it easy for themselves: In 95% of cases you will get to work and the children will get picked up. Isn’t that enough? Ask my manager or my children…

This article is incoherent. We need to agree on terminology!

“But he believes that EV batteries can get smaller while offering the same amount of range because the energy density of batteries is increasing at a rate of about five percent every year.”

The *size* of a battery is measured in kg or cubic meters, the *energy* of a battery is measured in kWh (as in “90-100 kWh is the peak”), and the *range* of a battery is equivalent to energy, for a given size vehicle.

Then the “same amount of range” means the same “energy” in kWh. Thus we won’t necessarily be going to batteries that are “smaller” in range or energy terms, though they may be physically smaller.

Perhaps he meant that smaller cars can make do with smaller batteries with less energy, while getting the same range?

that what i read too, he means a smaller physical size and a smaller price. kWh stays the same .

This is one of those EV topics I find endlessly fascinating. (Hey, I have a degree in economics, so cut me some slack, OK?) As others have said above, I think it’s clearly a case of different types of vehicles and usage scenarios having different optimal pack sizes. Look at engine size or horsepower or AWD or almost anything related to the power train today. We see one “right” answer for econoboxes, one for midsize vehicles, one for minivans, one for pickups (and a range, depending on towing requirements), one for sports cars, etc. But in general, I think we will see interesting interactions between charging infrastructure and pack size, but it could be a bit more complex than projected in the article. I could easily see something like: 1. Battery prices keep declining. 2. Battery sizes grow for a while. 3. More chargers are built. 4. EVs become more affordable and enticing to mainstreamers, who buy many more. 5. [4] means congestion at chargers, despite [3], pushing people in the short run to even larger batteries. 6. The congestion in [5] leads to a big push for even more public chargers, which lets more people get by with slightly… Read more »

To add to this , perhaps , except for tesla , no one can secure large battery supply , so they will do the PHEV and rex options as large volumes and less of pure BEV with large kapa.

No, they will not. Just look at what Volkswagen is doing. Is it aiming for more PHEVs and more micro-car BEVs with small battery packs?

Heck no! VW says it plans to invest $48 billion (!!) dollars to ensure near-term battery supply, mostly for the full-sized BEVs it’s going to start building in 2020. PHEVs are already a shrinking part of the market. That trend will almost certainly continue, and VW is planning accordingly.

This idea that there is some fixed limit to battery production is silly. Gasoline is a resource which is rapidly running out, but battery supply will continue to increase as more and more manufacturing is devoted to that market.

A NEMA 14-50 PLUG, wired to a 240V x 50A Circuit Breaker, is currently Tesla’s most Universal and Practical Power Source, beyond Tesla L2 Chargers, and J1772 Chargers, for daily access, when Commuting. SOME other EV Makers are Finally starting to “Get It”, and including a cord that can charge from 120V “OR” 240V Sockets, but standardizing on the NEMA 14-50 PLUG, would be a great start, for Portable cords, for North America, at least! Then, base level Infrastructure expansion could increase without confusion! A J1772 EVSE or a Tesla Wall Charger, can use the NEMA 14-50 Plug system as a convenience upgrade, after the fact, then, too! It seems to me, putting in 50 NEMA 14-50 Receptacles, in a 50 stall parking space, is far easier than wiring in 50 L2 EVSE’s, as well as a lot less up front expense, and easier for any property manager to Justify! Plus, “Pairing” a 240V Receptacle with a 120V Receptacle, at the same stall, allows for Any EV to charge, use of a 120V Vacuum to clean your car, and more situations! If on separate circuits, Charging can happen while you do general car clean up, too! It seems to me,… Read more »

Yeah, well, many home docking stations have 6-50 or 14-50 plugs on them (since 14-30 ampere and 14-50 ampere plugs are identical other than the Neutral which isn’t used, some of the chinese stuff is being made WITHOUT THE N Pin, so that way it may plug into either 30 or 50 ampere outlets of the 14 prefix number.

The problem I find with 14-50’s in the field is that the locked breaker or switch ahead of them is shut off, more often than not.

The only other problem is that as long as home EVSE’s are somewhat pricey, you have to stay with your car for the duration – since if a thief knows what it is it will be GONE by the time you get back to your car.

Batteries are the heaviest, most expensive, least durable part of what otherwise is the best propulsion system imaginable. The logical thing to do is make the smallest, most aerodynamic vehicles possible to minimize the amount of battery (and charging infrastructure) needed for the transition away from planet destroying fossil fueled personal transportation. So what do we do?…insist on replicating our hideously inefficient, brain dead, monster trucks with a ton of batteries. What a species!

Yep, Why insist on building big sedans that most people don’t need. Something the size of a Smart car would do most commuters in their day to day life, yet few people actually buy them, insisting on much bigger vehicles.

How many Smart style vehicles could you build with the materials required for the 100,000 I Paces or Model 3’s?

No, we started by making small and aero cars/sedans which don’t sell that well other than tesla. Personally I want a small cuv/SUV with awd and I don’t care that it might only have a 2 m/kwh usage. If it has a 125 kwh pack it will cover my needs and still be inexpensive to drive compared to an ice equivalent.

I don’t want a sedan, too low to the ground and harder to get in and out. I also want awd for those few snow days that keep me at home now. Right now I have not been willing to pay the fuel penalty for that trade off, but with an ev, even at 1m/kwh that would only be $.06 per mile.

What makes sense and what consumers want and are actually willing do buy is not necessarily the same thing.

If car purchases were made rationally every 2 car household in the industrialized world would own a LEAF.

If humans were rational animals, then we’d build efficient, swift, frequently running mass transit systems serving every urban and suburban area in the entire first world, and reduce the need for personal car ownership (and public roads) by about 90%.

But we’d have to invent a better, more rational human being for that to happen.

He is certainly right that five years from now, the *average* capacity will be lower than the I-Pace… Since the average is way, way lower right now. But it will only be going up — both maximal capacities, and average. (Though the latter might become asymptotic at some point I guess?…)

Well, we can rationally expect the average capacity to plateau at some point, if that’s what you mean. (I’m expecting charging speed (miles of added range per minute) to continue to increase, as it has been, even as average battery capacity continues to rise.) But I don’t see the “at some point” being reached until the average BEV is rated at 300+ miles of EPA range.

If he merely means battery packs have reached about their maximum physical size, then he may be right… barring outliers such as the 2020 Tesla Roadster, with its outsized 200 kWh battery pack.

But it’s ridiculous to suggest that the industry will stop at 100 kWh. Gasmobiles, almost without exception, have 300+ mile ranges on a tank of gas. It’s pretty silly to suggest BEVs won’t creep up to, or at least near, that same range, since that’s obviously what drivers want.

As battery prices continue to drop, the average battery pack capacity in new BEVs will continue to increase until the expected range is ~300-350 miles for most BEVs.

People with gasmobiles want 300miles of range becuase they hate having to get gas. 300miles range means you only have to fill up 1/wk. Charging an EV is way more convenient, just plug in at home. Full “tank” every day. Means you don’t need 300milea of range.

This is simply not true. Yes, I can do with a 10 kWh for 40 out of the 52 weeks of the year. But those other 12 weeks I really need my 100 kWh Model S just to get to my destination. I need to charge to get back home, but I dont always have the time to do so. I would love 200 or 300 kWh in my car for those long trips.

Just as in my previous ICE I had a 70 liter tank, while my daily commute was maybe 1 liter. Yet those 70 liters came in handy on longer trips!

I think he is wrong for the fact that to accommodate fast charging, oversizing the battery has the benefit of giving a sufficient range when charged to 80%. Absent battery breakthroughs that allow fast charging small batteries to 100% without degradation, I think big batteries still will be preferred.

I agree

I think there’s a couple of things going on. One is that the good Doctor’s employer hasn’t secured the battery production capability it’ll need, so there’s a natural tendency to pretend battery sizes (in KWh) are less of an issue. I do think it’s true that eventually there’ll be a plateau in installed battery capacity per vehicle. I don’t think we’ve hit that yet, though. My guess is the entry level for consumer vehicles will eventually be around 250 miles, with options up to 400 or 500 miles. These will be some sort of very long-lived, fast charging batteries. But also, by then a lot of people won’t be buying their own vehicles (TaaS hello). So most people won’t care what the range is, so long as it gets them where they want. For anyone going on a road trip, I think 250 miles is really the bottom end of what you’d want. With less than that, an 80% charge gets you 2 hours or less drive time per charge (less in the winter), so you end up waiting for your EV to charge a lot on the trip. Plus all the extra duty cycles will be hard on the… Read more »

Don’t agree. That vehicle can’t tow. That size vehicle should have a tow capability and probably needs a much larger capacity battery to achieve that with reasonable customer satisfaction in all conditions and road demands. Tesla Model X towing really knocks the range back so this is a generic challenge.

Also given the energy efficiency and range of the I-PACE, that vehicle probably needs a larger battery.

Moreover, we haven’t got into the serious size pickups/SUV/4WD diesel replacements yet.

One things for sure: they need to work on the I pace range…

Personally I would pay more for range up to about 400 miles range (real, not EPA, WLTP or NEDC, to list them in order of increasing dishonesty). Obviously I do not care what pack size it takes to achieve that. Only Roadster 2, with 200kWh of batteries, a car not yet on sale, can achieve that range. Therefore I expect that, as batteries get cheaper, pack sizes of that order will be offered in the likes of the Model S (and equivalent, if any). I expect solid state batteries to end this discussion not long after that point.

assuming battery electrics are the final iteration I would be surprised if you don’t choose battery size like every other vehicle option. but as far as physical size goes I have to imagine we’ve peaked, my s-10 wouldn’t be able to house a current 100kwhb battery. but as for range I imagine there will be a marker for virtually every possible iteration including ridiculously long trips like those delivery drivers might take.

I wonder why the British and Americans don’t see eye-to-eye on this issue?

You mean California is just slighly larger than Luxembourg? Lets hear what Russians – what with NINE time zones, have to say about required battery sizes.

So the next thing is a Battery and a capacitor. Capacitor for acceleration and battery for range. Put them together and you have it sorted.

Even with improved chemistry/ energy density, batteries are likely to remain pretty heavy.

Most vehicles aren’t driven that far every day. A 90-100kwh battery covers most daily commutes with capacity to spare, even if it’s cold, raining, dark and you play your stereo at max. So why put in extra range you won’t use that often and a lot of extra weight (and cost)?

Even going long distance, after burning through 75-80kwh (250 miles or so) it’s time to take a break. Which is where ubiquitous fast chargers come in. Far more useful than larger batteries.

Entry level TESLA MODEL X has a 75kWh battery
I-PACE has at least 90kWh battery
Entry MODEL X gets more range with a bigger car.