Jump to content

Ford to build $3.5B factory that will make two kinds of batteries with Chinese partner


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, AGR said:

I think that increased efficiency will also play a role.

I don't get the one speed transmissions. Logically, I would think you would have one gear for around town, and an overdrive gear for highway driving. An electric motor spinning slower would use less energy than one spinning faster. Or is my logic flawed?.

 

The very short version is that electric motors produces near max torque as soon as it start spinning so it doesn't need gears to amplify the output. 

 

ICE motors need gears because the way it produces power. Electric motors do not need gears to be efficient. They can use gears, but only to amplify the output even more, which most EV do not need. They are terrifyingly fast already. But using gears means lost of power thru the conversion so EV becomes less efficient. Since they do not need the amplification of output, there is no reason to use gears which only reduces efficiency.

 

Think of it this way... If you have a wood burning fireplace, it is more efficient to add more wood to it and keep it burning rather than extinguish the flames and start the fire again when it gets cold 2 hours from now. But if you have a gas fireplace, you just turn it on and off as you wish. You don't ask why we don't add more wood to the gas fireplace to keep the flames alive because that is not how gas fireplace produces heat. 

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

The very short version is that electric motors produces near max torque as soon as it start spinning so it doesn't need gears to amplify the output. 

 

ICE motors need gears because the way it produces power. Electric motors do not need gears to be efficient. They can use gears, but only to amplify the output even more, which most EV do not need. They are terrifyingly fast already. But using gears means lost of power thru the conversion so EV becomes less efficient. Since they do not need the amplification of output, there is no reason to use gears which only reduces efficiency.

 

Think of it this way... If you have a wood burning fireplace, it is more efficient to add more wood to it and keep it burning rather than extinguish the flames and start the fire again when it gets cold 2 hours from now. But if you have a gas fireplace, you just turn it on and off as you wish. You don't ask why we don't add more wood to the gas fireplace to keep the flames alive because that is not how gas fireplace produces heat. 

It is more to do about rpm range and efficiency over that range.  Plenty of ice motors could get by with a single gear, but the efficiency of driving around like that would be horrendous.  The rpm range is much less on an automotive engine. 9k or so max but many redline in the 6-7k range compared to an electric motor at over 20k.  The Mach e is 13.8k

 

The big advantage of an electric motor making torque as soon as it starts spinning is no need for a torque converter or clutch.

The Mustang Mach e does have a reduction gear of somewhere around 9:1.  There is an automotive professor from Weber St who has some interesting tear down videos of the Mach e drivetrain.  He also does some on the escape hybrid transmission.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiC15Linpn9AhVSkIkEHUIrAEoQtwJ6BAgQEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dy1HulO-EZkc%26vl%3Den&usg=AOvVaw2546E9AfBGVQdbYrMS2JX3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, slemke said:

The Mustang Mach e does have a reduction gear of somewhere around 9:1.


Yes, that’s in the typical range for many EVs, which happens to be the same as many early Mustangs in 1st gear.  When compared to ICE, BEVs can be thought of as driving around in 1st gear all the time, which explains excellent acceleration.  Unlike ICE though, they can get away with low gearing because their electric motors can spin up to 15,000 RPM or higher, and all while maintaining fairly high efficiency.

 

A fixed gear is likely cheaper overall due to simplicity, but some BEV manufacturers are using 2-speed transmissions to improve performance and efficiency.  Tesla Roadster used 2-speed initially but had issues and abandoned.  Porsche apparently has a 2-speed with 8.5:1 and 15:1 (article below).  If BEV is made more efficient so it reduces battery requirements, that savings may pay for the 2-speed transmission.  I doubt that will happen on smaller inexpensive cars, but larger pickup trucks could benefit when towing or hauling heavy loads.

 

 

“The fact that an EV can do without multiple gear ratios doesn’t mean they can’t make things a little better, though, and Tesla knows this.”

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/07/27/ev-transmissions-are-awesome/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rick73 said:


Yes, that’s in the typical range for many EVs, which happens to be the same as many early Mustangs in 1st gear.  When compared to ICE, BEVs can be thought of as driving around in 1st gear all the time, which explains excellent acceleration.  Unlike ICE though, they can get away with low gearing because their electric motors can spin up to 15,000 RPM or higher, and all while maintaining fairly high efficiency.

 

A fixed gear is likely cheaper overall due to simplicity, but some BEV manufacturers are using 2-speed transmissions to improve performance and efficiency.  Tesla Roadster used 2-speed initially but had issues and abandoned.  Porsche apparently has a 2-speed with 8.5:1 and 15:1 (article below).  If BEV is made more efficient so it reduces battery requirements, that savings may pay for the 2-speed transmission.  I doubt that will happen on smaller inexpensive cars, but larger pickup trucks could benefit when towing or hauling heavy loads.

 

 

“The fact that an EV can do without multiple gear ratios doesn’t mean they can’t make things a little better, though, and Tesla knows this.”

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/07/27/ev-transmissions-are-awesome/

 

Here might be another reason why they aren't using them



This, along with other factors, explains why the Taycan got such a good number in Edmunds‘ range testing. In its most efficient drive mode (which the EPA doesn’t use), it got far more range on the real highway than anticipated, while the Tesla fell a little short of EPA estimates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2023 at 11:55 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

Going by Ford's comments about EV's, I think they might be banking on making cars charge quicker in the near term (next 10 years) then adding more battery capacity.

 

Being able to go only say 200-250 miles but being able to recharge to 80% of that in say 10-15 minutes would really remove any requirement for larger batteries in most situations

 

As long as the extended range batteries are still an option, the smaller cheaper battery packs are great for those that only use them locally or short trips or like to stop a lot for breaks.  No reason to pay extra for range that isn’t needed.  The LFP batteries have more recharge cycles than NMC, so the shorter range shouldn’t matter for the lifetime of the battery.

 

The other thing mentioned was improving aerodynamics.  This will help improve range without increasing battery size.  Ford needs to take a systems approach to engineering the vehicles.  Improved aerodynamics will help ICE also.  It was a big focus in the 80s, but as fuel got cheaper and engines and transmissions more efficient it became lower priority to style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like the EPA regulations need to be updated.  I’ll bet that happens as we see more EVs and trying to get the lowest cost solution.  Manufacturers will then have a reason to lobby for the change. I had forgotten about the Taycan and roadster using a 2 speed transmission.  I recall Ford making some prototype electric Mustang with 6 speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, slemke said:

Seems like the EPA regulations need to be updated.  I’ll bet that happens as we see more EVs and trying to get the lowest cost solution.  Manufacturers will then have a reason to lobby for the change. I had forgotten about the Taycan and roadster using a 2 speed transmission.  I recall Ford making some prototype electric Mustang with 6 speed.


The 6 speed mustang EV was just for fun.  I thought the reason the high performance EVs needed a 2 speed tranny was to hit higher speeds because the motors hit their limit around 70 mph or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, slemke said:

Seems like the EPA regulations need to be updated.  I’ll bet that happens as we see more EVs and trying to get the lowest cost solution.  Manufacturers will then have a reason to lobby for the change. I had forgotten about the Taycan and roadster using a 2 speed transmission.  I recall Ford making some prototype electric Mustang with 6 speed.

Going to ask what may be a silly question. As we move toward the world of EV transportation, shouldn't we just do away with EPA regulations? I know, I know, the famous quote, "there is nothing so permanent as a government program." But EPA CAFE standards only came in as a way to limit oil imports due to the first Arab oil boycott. It then continued to be justified to help control traditional tailpipe air pollution, and more recently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to climate concerns. But with an all-EV fleet, why should the EPA care if some folks wanted to buy relatively more or less efficient vehicles that use more or less electricity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

Going to ask what may be a silly question. As we move toward the world of EV transportation, shouldn't we just do away with EPA regulations? I know, I know, the famous quote, "there is nothing so permanent as a government program." But EPA CAFE standards only came in as a way to limit oil imports due to the first Arab oil boycott. It then continued to be justified to help control traditional tailpipe air pollution, and more recently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to climate concerns. But with an all-EV fleet, why should the EPA care if some folks wanted to buy relatively more or less efficient vehicles that use more or less electricity?


Absolutely but I think they’re using it right now to encourage BEV adoption and to track progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

But with an all-EV fleet, why should the EPA care if some folks wanted to buy relatively more or less efficient vehicles that use more or less electricity?


In my opinion they should care because for the foreseeable future, electricity to power BEVs will not be from 100% renewable sources.  It follows then that vehicles that only achieve 2 miles per kWh will pollute at least twice as much as those achieving 4 miles per kWh.  It is unavoidable that total energy efficiency matters unless there is first a surplus of carbon-free energy; and that’s not going to happen in a very long time, if ever.

 

I’m personally disappointed that more is not being done to discourage 9,000-pound Hummers to haul a 150-pound person to the store and back; or work, doctor, etc.  It’s just wasteful and undermines credibility of government and auto industry when it comes to global warming efforts.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, akirby said:


The 6 speed mustang EV was just for fun.  I thought the reason the high performance EVs needed a 2 speed tranny was to hit higher speeds because the motors hit their limit around 70 mph or so.


An unrestricted Tesla S Plaid hit over 200 MPH with motors that can spin 20,000 RPM.  It is crazy fast, which makes additional gears seem pointless.  It also does 0-60 in 2 seconds, though it requires around 1,000 HP.  It is definitely a toy, not what most people need for transportation.

 

Data suggest many if not most BEVs are geared similarly in the range of +/- 10 MPH per 1,000 RPM, so as long as motors can spin at least 10,000 RPM, BEVs have plenty of top end for normal highway driving.  I expect those that limit speed do so more to conserve driving range.

 

The following article shows a typical dual-reduction single-speed Tesla gearbox.  Ratio is about 9:1.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/518692/tesla-model-3y-drive-units/
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, Rick73 said:

A concern is that some EV costs are going up instead of down as previously projected, which will likely slow adoption rate unless EVs are made much more efficient so they need less battery capacity.

 

That should not be a concern anymore as prices for raw materials stabilize or decline and as economies of scale develop further from the expansion of BEV and BEV component manufacturing plants like the Ford-CATL facility in south central Michigan. CATL is starting to offer discounts on EV batteries nowadays in their domestic market. China's CATL offers EV battery discounts in China -sources | Reuters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, akirby said:


The 6 speed mustang EV was just for fun.  I thought the reason the high performance EVs needed a 2 speed tranny was to hit higher speeds because the motors hit their limit around 70 mph or so.

Nothing wrong with a little fun.  Fact was they did it to have fun with it and one more example of using multiple gear ratios on an EV.

 

I recall also, that the 2 speed was for obtaining a higher speed.  It really depends on the rpm range of the motor.  The Mach e with a 13.8k max rpm is limited to 111 mph.  The GT is limited to 124mph  A Tesla model 3 performance has a top speed of 162mph, standard is 140mph.  The Tesla motor spins to 18k rpm.  All use a similar 9:1 gear reduction.  There must be something going on with the electrical system of the Mach E.  Motor specs are similar or better to the Model 3, but actual performance is well short.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:


In my opinion they should care because for the foreseeable future, electricity to power BEVs will not be from 100% renewable sources.  It follows then that vehicles that only achieve 2 miles per kWh will pollute at least twice as much as those achieving 4 miles per kWh.  It is unavoidable that total energy efficiency matters unless there is first a surplus of carbon-free energy; and that’s not going to happen in a very long time, if ever.

 

I’m personally disappointed that more is not being done to discourage 9,000-pound Hummers to haul a 150-pound person to the store and back; or work, doctor, etc.  It’s just wasteful and undermines credibility of government and auto industry when it comes to global warming efforts.

 

Why doesn't the government then limit the permissible size and overall energy use of houses? Or limit a household to only being able to own one vehicle, which must be BEV? Or limit the ability of successful businesses to expand and use more electricity? Or allocate a set amount of permissible use of electricity to every U.S. resident? I should probably just shut up; don't want to give the government any more ideas...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, slemke said:

The other thing mentioned was improving aerodynamics.  This will help improve range without increasing battery size.  Ford needs to take a systems approach to engineering the vehicles.  Improved aerodynamics will help ICE also.  It was a big focus in the 80s, but as fuel got cheaper and engines and transmissions more efficient it became lower priority to style.

Aerodynamics only really comes into effect around the 65-70+ MpH mark. For around town driving it really doesn’t account much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:


In my opinion they should care because for the foreseeable future, electricity to power BEVs will not be from 100% renewable sources.  It follows then that vehicles that only achieve 2 miles per kWh will pollute at least twice as much as those achieving 4 miles per kWh.  It is unavoidable that total energy efficiency matters unless there is first a surplus of carbon-free energy; and that’s not going to happen in a very long time, if ever.

 

I’m personally disappointed that more is not being done to discourage 9,000-pound Hummers to haul a 150-pound person to the store and back; or work, doctor, etc.  It’s just wasteful and undermines credibility of government and auto industry when it comes to global warming efforts.


The hummer is nothing more then halo/vanity product to give BEVs attention. 
 

As for your 4 kWh vs 2 kWh argument-the reduction of not using ICE is would save even more pollution. On average a BEV puts out less then 5k of pounds of CO2 a year vs 10-15k for an average car. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I’m personally disappointed that more is not being done to discourage 9,000-pound Hummers to haul a 150-pound person to the store and back; or work, doctor, etc.  It’s just wasteful and undermines credibility of government and auto industry when it comes to global warming efforts.

 

GM sold 854 Hummer EVs in 2022. Your disappointment is misplaced.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

 

Why doesn't the government then limit the permissible size and overall energy use of houses? Or limit a household to only being able to own one vehicle, which must be BEV? Or limit the ability of successful businesses to expand and use more electricity? Or allocate a set amount of permissible use of electricity to every U.S. resident? I should probably just shut up; don't want to give the government any more ideas...


I purposely said “discourage”, not limit.  I agree with what your post above implies — freedom to choose for the most part.  Like many, I question my own choices when they are wasteful, yet don’t want them made illegal by government (which to me is another word for we the people).

 

Anyway, I agree we shouldn’t limit Hummer BEVs any more than limit 8 MPG motorhomes (I owned one until I downsized).  I also agree with your logic because an owner of an 8 MPG motorhome may only drive it 3,000 miles per year while another who owns a 16 MPG camper may drive 12,000 miles per year.  It’s difficult to regulate fuel or energy consumption fairly, so maybe best not to try?

 

I would like to see reasonable incentives to promote conservation, but for the most part let the people living in (somewhat regulated) free markets decide.  An example are home air conditioners that are required to have a minimum EER (energy efficiency ratio), but buyers can choose to spend more for greater efficiency.  While there is a minimum EER that can be purchased, we don’t limit how much air conditioning capacity people can install, or how cold they keep their home.

 

I don't know what incentives would encourage conservation without limiting freedoms, but hope others have viable ideas that are not intrusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2023 at 1:51 PM, jasonj80 said:

My personal experience:

1). US is a country excessively relying on stock market to become rich, hence forcing companies to focus on quarterly results, where research/development can take years or decades, so ideas with NO immediate return will get dropped because investor interest takes priority. I see no change of this, there will be more bad things to come. (Even the so called in-sourcing of manufacturing will NOT succeed, there will be LONG-TERM issue despite short-term gain, please MARK my words in 10-15 years when US loses lead in semiconductor, aviation, biomedical industries. )

2). In 2007, 2008, VC will literally rape you by inserting money into your anus (we need you to innovate and make revolutionary discovery, please take my $$ and DO innovation).

3). If you propose working LFP to VC, they said there is no innovation because LFP is 10-20% less than NCM chemistry, we need you to improve performance by 10x, 100x and decrease price by 10x, 100x (I exaggerate a little bit, but you get the point).

4). So someone like me will work on innovative battery ( I used pure gold to make battery, if I succeed, the battery is shit, it may cost $6m, produce an EV range of 20 feet [no typo], obviously I didn't want to do such shit, but VC insist on it (in my case it is Battelle Venture, other VCs are the same.

     The country is on the wrong track, as a scientist, the last thing you want is to have some idiots "direct" you to work on something, also the media hype and the fraud by Tesla ( they are fraud, PERIOD) makes people believe battery price can drop and battery performance can increase by 1000x in 30 years, but there is no Moore's law.

 

 

      

Quote

 

 


Maybe if we as a country had focused on battery research over the past 30 years the way the Koreans and Chinese have done we wouldn't have needed to partner with outside companies. 

Our University's have been come obsessed with the Theoretic aspects of science not the marketable types of it; and Industry led by accountants and MBAs have become obsessed with the bottom line and out source every component them can because they care more about the quarter and year than year 5 and 10 or even 20. Then you get into grant agencies of funding research labs that is focused on the person who runs the lab than what actually the lab produces and worse even after it is published YOU CAN'T DUPLICATE THE RESULTS! 

 

Edited by lifepo4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Nope, just calling out people who might be trolling. 

Yes, I am trolling, because Ford's relation with both SK and LG are at breaking point, ditto GM with LG.  If you have ever developed high power Li ion battery, you know it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to avoid fire, blaming the fire on them will cause BOTH to quit in a matter of time, according to my sources with both companies.

 

Note pouch cell has bulging issue, but prismatic has heating issue, while cylindrical cell has poor packing efficiency and more difficult BMS design, each con I cite here will make it more likely to catch fire (but I don't know which one is the worst, my personal preference is the prismatic cell). None of them are immune from fire and all of the EV fires are very violent. 

 

Someone has to force the Fed to let battery maker/automaker get some kind of immunity, or they all gonna quit the EV business in a couple of years.

 

https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Ford Presentation.pdf  (page 24)

 

If you drive a F-150 lighting, make sure you always have a plan to exit (while on highway) in seconds, or you could be burnt to ashes, its fire will be a lot worst than this due to much larger battery pack

 

Edited by lifepo4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

Coming on to a Ford discussion group just to stay they make a junk product is TROLLING

Kidding of course, I have tremendous respect for Ted J. Miller, Ken Snyder and the group they lead at Ford, the constant concern for battery fire is draining them.

Ford/SK dispute could eventually make the EV business go away completely, despite LG/SK had atrocious relation, but they are both unfairly targeted for EV battery ( The fire root cause analysis is often impossible and the fire hazard will always be there, in 5y, 20y and 60y, it will never go away), the regulator and the consumer eventually have to accept that. IF you have Ford and battery partner foot the bill for the inevitable fire hazard, the EV price has to go up significantly.  Now you understand Toyota very hesitant to enter EV business, the non-issue run-away Toyota caused $5.4B loss for them, a large battery fire induced recall will wipe out the supply chain overnight ( no one can pay $400B in a recall). If Ford recall 800,000 F-150 in 2025, it can cost them 15-20 billion dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...