The Audi's e-Tron Got Electric Car Charging Right - And Other Cars Haven't

When charging an electric car from a rapid charging station, the latter part of the charge always takes a lot longer than the first bit.
That's because of basic battery chemistry -- and the need to keep battery packs healthy and operating safely.
But Audi's e-tron SUV doesn't charge like other electric cars out there. It's capable of higher-power charging until it's almost full. Here's how Audi's charging cycle is possible, why it's the right methodology for electric car charging in general -- and why other automakers should follow Audi's lead.
Don't forget to like, comment and subscribe, and support us using the links below.
Buy the team a coffee -- or a meal! ko-fi.com/tran...
Follow the show on Mastodon: mastodon.trans...
Buy Transport Evolved SWAG : teespring.com/...
Join our Discord Channel: / discord
Support us on Patreon: / transportevolved
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "2023 Kia Niro EV: Why You'll Want To Drive This"
• 2023 Kia Niro EV: A Fa...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

[@ijcorner]

I would prefer to have the option myself. I'll charge up to 80% most of the time but if I'm going on a trip I would like the option to use all of the battery.

[@macronencer]

This is exactly what I was going to say too! I've had my Kona a month now, and only once have I charged it to 100%, when I had to go on a long trip - and I did that at home on a 2.5kW cable, which, believe me, needed planning ahead ;) I leave the charge limit options set to 80% most of the time, and I reset them to 100% just for this one occasion.

[@trickys77]

@@macronencer Me too, 100% agree. It doesn't make sense to me to 'hide' battery capacity to get a 'faster' charging speed. Give it all to me and let me decide, but at the same time provide the knowledge that the last 80% will be slower. I'm a big boy, I can make my own choices! :)

[@Kp889977]

That's exactly what you can do with a tesla, is it not?

[@ijcorner]

@@Kp889977 maybe that's why I'm waiting for my model 3 performance 👌 apparently it's on the grand mark ship now! Can't wait 👍

[@davetravels9273]

I would agree, but no one in my family would care to understand the reason behind this, which is her point. Audi and VAG as a whole are about the mass market, not about early adopters, after all, they are either the largest or second largest manufacturer in the world.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

What? We should give up a huge chunk of range, yet still have to PAY FOR 100% of the battery, so that simpletons can have a more "gas-like" experience? No thanks.

[@stephenclay6852]

I agree. Your paying for that size battery so I won’t the use of it.

[@BugMagnet]

Well, its a huge bulky SUV, so it is tailored towards people who don't have the first clue about engineering in the first place. I bet it will go over very well with golf club grand dads and salespeople. But I would not be the least bit surprised if Audi changes this short to mid term in the etron's life cycle. Getting outranged by the Kona and the mid range ID3 really makes it look bad.

[@ijcorner]

Simpletons - love it! 🤣

[@Robert-cu9bm]

But in the long run you might save on depreciation as the battery pack has less degradation than other manufacturers so outweighs the thought of losing "batteries"

[@rushabhshah9530]

Robert makes no sense. It will depreciate right off the lot like crazy when people realize it’s usable capacity is much lower than other cars at a comparable price point.

[@owenjones1015]

I've recalibrated my phone so that 10% battery means 100% charge. Now it charges to full in less than 5 minutes! I'm a genius!

[@placeholdername0000]

It's a question of rebranding. Rename the 0 to 80% to nominal range mode, and 0 to 100% to overclock mode. Gives people a good indication of when they should charge to 100%.

[@BooBaddyBig]

Nah, 0-100%. But then allow them to turn it up to 115% but only when trickle charged, with a special boost button.

[@PaulTurner_Haizo]

A clearer naming would be "A Long Battery Life charge" and "A Long Range charge" or "A Long Trip charge" When the user is paying for the charge, charging according to the power the charger uses (not the power that is put into the battery) will get the message across real quick!

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@davidbeaulieu4815 Your gasmobile must make you sad.

[@danielhughes6896]

So we should all give up 20% of our range for the illusion of faster charging, good one.

[@greglindstrom1705]

illusion??? the fact they use less of the battery doesnt make the difference. i know my model x cant charge at 100kw at 50% charge

[@danielhughes6896]

@@greglindstrom1705 Tesla V3 supercharger is capable of 250 KW. If your only getting 100 kw then you might have an issue.

[@danielhughes6896]

Here is a comparision of v3 supercharger vs Audi. electrek.co/2019/06/11/tesla-model-3-vs-audi-e-tron-350kw-charge-off/ At about 50% charge, the Audi and Tesla are at parity in terms of kW charge *but the Model 3 is still getting more miles per hour of charge because of its more efficient size and design* . At about 80% of charge, which both cars reach at the same time (and where many travelers will opt to stop charging because of the reduced speeds of charging) the Audi is still at an impressive 125kW while the Tesla has dropped to 53kW. *But at this point, and any parity percentage point, the Tesla has over 50% more range.*

[@danielhughes6896]

This means the V3 Tesla supercharger upto 80% is getting *twice* the number of miles per minute. This is not even a contest.

[@MrTanahmed]

In your video you acknowledge that it's better to arrive with low SoC and charge to say 50 or 60% and drive to next. You also acknowledge that Tesla is by far the best at doing this. You also acknowledge that Audi only achieve their flat but higher rate by limiting the available battery. So you pay for a larger battery but can't use it. We also know that Tesla SuC network is the best and most reliable. So you can comfortably turn up with say 10% and leave with 60% reliably and faster than any other and you have a much longer range. if you want to stay for longer, get some lunch etc then great no problems, but we are talking fastest and most convenient, but you then say Audi is the way to go. Your conclusion seems weird. Fast reliable charging from low SoC for long journeys, Tesla has it right, for when you can stay for a longer charge, Tesla will give you a much longer range and a more efficient car. So why follow the Audi model. Crazy conclusion.

[@poweronee.1124]

Though I love the info and your videos I strongly disagree with you on Audi's party trick. I say give me all my range and teach me how to manage it. If this is their way to get one up on others it come at the expense of their consumers. We don't need to be controlled we need to be educated

[@sambira]

@tommy aronson A consumer doesn't have to balance the cell charging. That's the job of the manufacturer. But to limit the amount of the battery being charged to something like 75% and calling it 100% just so it appears that one can charge faster to 100% is a parlor trick which can be done by the consumer for any EV that does allow more use of their battery for charging.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Mark Wick It's really no different to a speedo registering at at higher speed than actual or range left to 0 miles when you can go past. Simplicity for the consumer is best, maybe put a switch in so you can charge the bit extra in prep for the longer journeys.

[@lorenzmuller4000]

Mark Wick but you guys forget one important fact. Yes Audi displays 100% when in reality it’s only 80% full, but the e-Tron also pays for it because it has less range. The advertised 417km WLTP or 204miles EPA are tested with the 87kwh battery capacity. With an ICE car you can have more horsepower with chip tuning which basically unlocks the full potential of your engine, does that mean that the manufacturers limited the engine to extend the lifespan of the engine? The answer is yes and that’s good for the consumer.

[@rushabhshah9530]

Robert ... awrite simpleton!

[@rushabhshah9530]

Lorenz Müller yep so was dieselgate! Let’s keep things hidden from the consumer... so they don’t get all that they paid for... such an ICE- age thinking!

[@jaymesdevine7737]

Maybe Audi reduced the capacity of the charge because they have poor battery chemistry and they wouldn't last long if you charged then to 100%. Also, I can't see how Audi giving you less is a win.

[@cusman]

More likely they haven't had enough time in the field for their engineers to be able to say with certainty how well the batteries will last without degradation in variety of climate conditions and consumer charging patterns. Tesla has nearly 12 year lead on everyone except Nissan and GM on validated and continually improved battery chemistry and management than everyone else. Nissan who has been in the space nearly as long still has new Leaf being made whose battery are known to degrade significantly in colder climates because they don't have good battery management. My instinct is that Audi is being cautious and at some point when they have more confidence, they will make more of the battery available, just like Tesla did with a software update at one point.

[@EVPaddy]

Well, Teslas lose range, too. And they'll really lose range. The Audi won't for a long time.

[@cusman]

@@EVPaddy You have no real world data about Audi batteries to say anything about long time. They are literally less than a few months on the road today. As for Tesla batteries, go read this: www.engadget.com/2018/04/16/tesla-battery-packs-live-longer

[@cusman]

​@@KyleHubb In that case, hopefully my response will just help anyone else that comes along. Can't help those that are closed off from reason and real-world data.

[@EVPaddy]

@@KyleHubb Well, I am a fan. I'm a geek and I would love to get those software updates and tinker with new versions. I also like the 'kick' of Teslas. But I hate some design decisions they made and I'm positive most carmakers build better quality cars. I am a fan, bot not a blind fanboy.

[@michae1simm]

I disagree, the single and only important thing in fast charging is the amount of miles added over time graph. Tesla stomps anyone out there in charging convenience because they charge more miles faster. By the point a Tesla is charging slower than an E-TRON (miles/hr) it will have way more range (upwards of 100 miles more for the MS/MX refresh). We shouldn't be congratulating Audi for doing the exact opposite of trying to push boundaries and making high preforming cars. (Besides it seems like your hitting at Tesla for something that profoundly makes no sense)

[@LAZARUSL0NG]

Just charge your Tesla up to only 200 miles. Hey presto, just like an Audi.

[@larryspiller15]

Yeah no kidding!

[@MarkLLawrence]

204 miles, can't forget those last 4 miles.

[@Tzoid1]

Model 3 takes 25 minutes on a 350 kW CCS to get to 200 miles from a 10% soc. Audi needs 40 minutes. Model 3 is even better if you can find a V3 supercharger. Which one is more practical?

[@LAZARUSL0NG]

Yeah, this video should have been titled “Audi had years to get it right, and still couldn’t touch Tesla.”

[@davetravels9273]

@@Tzoid1 The model 3 is much smaller than the e-tron, so in terms of range, you should be comparing it to an X. Real-world, the model 3 only maintains a high rate of charge until 30-40%, then tappers significantly. Bjorn just did a comparison and the model 3 needed 26.7 minutes and the e-tron needed 28 minutes from 10% SOC to hit 80% or 320 km or 200 miles of range in the real-world. Of course the model 3 hss more range, but it is more efficient given its smaller size and also under ideal conditions. The model 3 loses a lot more efficiency in colder temps (no heat pump) and at high speed on the Autobahn in comparison to the Audi, i.e. the Model 3's range is more variable than the Audi's.

[@shubhamlegha412]

Charging 80% of battery and showings 100 charged(audi) ... But in tesla it will charge nearly 100% but speed of changing till 80% is same as of Audi. So tesla is better.... Don't get biased :-)

[@matthiask.798]

I totally agree

[@HenriZwols]

In Tesla 100% isn't 100% either. Every car has a margin of unused capacity to prolong the battery life. Audi just uses a very large margin.

[@shubhamlegha412]

That's why i said nearly 👍

[@raym.balyeat7267]

I agree with Ian. Since home charging is what most EV owners will use to "fuel" their cars, time of charging is less relevant as compared with fueling at a gas station. Charging a Tesla Model S or X or Model 3 to 75% at a Supercharger is probably fairly comparable in time to fully charging an Audi e-tron. The range of the Teslas and access to the Tesla DC rapid charging network is priceless and worth the extra time it takes to charge to 90+%. When on a road trip I find that breaks away from the car help with the tedium of driving anyway. I appreciate that Tesla tries to place its charging stations near restaurants and malls.

[@hoffmantnt]

Tesla's decision to allow people to charge to 100% while recommending they normally charge to 90% or less is the best way. It does take more consumer education but having access to use the top of the battery is worth it.

[@bernardthedisappointedowl6938]

Is it? If it takes a lot lot of time to charge that final 10%, and it endangers the battery in the process, I see very little advantage to doing it - avoid that last bit, and your charge times drop, and the battery will last longer - net, there's no gain in time, as all that time is wasted waiting the last drop of power, and 3 80% full charges might end up taking as long as 2 100%, so you might be worse off on a long journey, ^oo^

[@billh2294]

@@bernardthedisappointedowl6938 So choice is bad? I shouldn't have the ability to charge to 100% in my garage before a long trip?

[@bernardthedisappointedowl6938]

​@@billh2294 Tesla has already had to fork out quite a lot of money for battery replacements and Audi will likely never need to ever face these costs - Eventually, I suspect they may well offer you the choice of charging to full, on condition that the guarantee on the battery is shrunk to a matter of a few years. It's not sustainable to have both a long guarantee, and treat the battery in such a damaging way - If guaranteed, these unnecessary battery replacements would be an additional cost to the company that ultimately other car owners would pay for through increased prices - That's far from an ideal solution, when Tesla is trying to make a profit and keep prices down, and there are many people who would not wish to effectively subsidise the bad battery management of others. ^oo^

[@billh2294]

@@bernardthedisappointedowl6938 You're right. As the industry leader Tesla has developed their pack and replaced under warranty Model S and Model X packs when needed. They then perfected the pack in the Model 3 and S & X going forward. As they monitored the fleets batteries, they decided that they were too conservative and did an over air update to allow more miles, charging and speed. Just another example of how far ahead Tesla is to the competition.

[@billh2294]

@@bernardthedisappointedowl6938 But, again, does the consumer want the choice? My understanding is that it is the CONTINUED use of charging to 100% that is the problem. In addition, there is also damage done if allowing to drain to 0% charge. Higher available miles reduces the chance of pushing the vehicle to the lower limits.

[@zagabog]

No, if I've had to buy all that battery I'd rather have the option of having all the sensible range available, than to have it restricted so that charging seems more linear. I somehow doubt that we will see Etron battery packs having better long term performance than a Tesla pack. They could of-course be planning to enable more of that reserved capacity as the car ages to mask the deteriorating battery capacity; but that would be smoke and mirrors and VW Audi wouldn't do that, would they?

[@larryspiller15]

Pouch cells in the audi have less surface area exposed to cooling because they are overall larger cells. Definitely have some questions on long term degradation myself aswell.

[@snapperjw]

So if I understand this we all have to drive around that “additional weight” of the battery which we will never to use in respect to range

[@golfish8589]

Elon musk says charge up to only 90% to pro-long battery life.. After you dump your tesla before the warranty runs out. It will have a few more owners before it goes to the junk yard. It would be nice for the owner 12 years from now to have a healthy battery

[@mondotv4216]

Range is one of the major factors in an EV purchase. I think be able to charge to 100% faster is not even on the radar. Convenience of charging infrastructure and speed of charging (ie how many kilometres you get in a certain period) is, but not some artifice of charging to "full". Sorry Nikki - if you offered consumers 100 miles more range or faster charging to"full" I think you'd find nearly everyone saying "more range please".

[@2017NationalChamps]

Exactly, miles per minute of charge is a more useful metric of charge performance.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Jim John Most people don't care how far they get on a tank(ice) , just how long it takes. Why do you think there is so many inefficient cars getting around. Getting the charge time down is the biggest issue to convert over.

[@2017NationalChamps]

@@Robert-cu9bm "Getting the charge time down..." Tesla is faster than Audi. From 0 to 204 Miles of range Audi is outclassed. Battery % is a meaningless metric. Charging a smaller capacity battery faster is not the goal its gaining range that counts.

[@mondotv4216]

Robert That’s one of the myths about EVs. They take too long to charge. It’s only valid if you’re one of those rare drivers that does 400 miles every day. For 99.9% of the population its actually faster to fill up an EV because you simply plug it in when you get home. OK I’m talking EVs with decent range. Not Gen1 Nissan Leafs or even the Audi. Sure there is still additional infrastructure like on street needed but that will come. Then on a road trip, a 30 or 40 min break makes sense after 250 miles behind the wheel.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

MondoTV It's not a myth, they do take a long time to charge. It's not faster to fill, if you have to do it every day. Takes five minutes to fill a ice car. Takes at least two minutes to plug in and unplug (if not longer) a Ev... That's every day. If you can have a home charger(not possible for a lot of people) street charging, need to find the app, the location the plug in and unplug.(and hope no one is there already charging.) Much longer than a conventional car, people are lazy so won't bother charging every night. That's why people still run out of fuel.

[@rhamph]

Batteries aren't thermally limited during the constant-current stage - it's the charging system itself (electronics in the car, charging cable, and power regulators outside the car) that are limited there. Constant-voltage is also not thermally limited - it's the chemistry itself that slows you down, you have to wait for molecules in the battery to move around and react. The really interesting thing about audi's charging graphs is there's a hump where they should be transitioning from constant-current to constant-voltage. This implies that for a few minutes they allow the voltage to climb higher than anywhere else in their charge cycle, pushing the chemistry to work faster, but also degrading the battery faster. FWIW I like the idea of degrading the max charge a bit, but only if the sticker and advertising ratings match your 0% to 100% range and if the extra capacity is still available as an "over-100%" mode. It would be interesting to see how often people end up using that "over-100%" mode.

[@cusman]

In routine life use, I have my Model 3 set to charge to approximately 85% max which we try to charge using primarily Solar power from our home. With our daily driving being generally less than 50 miles per day, this is enough to last 4 days even if there are 3 cloudy / rainy days in a row. There is never any need to charge more than 85% and honestly we could just as easily set it to 80% and still be fine. That being what it is, when it comes to longer range travel like taking a 900 mile each way road trip between Texas and Colorado for Spring Break, it was necessary to be able to charge to 95-100% to be able to take the most efficient paths. We met other Tesla owners at charging stations during that using older Model S that didn't haven enough range (250 vs our 300) to take the route we took. We also barely made it on the route we took so I know if we had only charged to 85% it would be more stressful / risky or the car wouldn't even project that we would make it and start recommending we stop for charging or slow down before we can get to next Supercharger along the route. This experience convinced us that we made good choice getting the longer range Model 3 over SR+ because as many Supercharger stations as they have, there are still routes that require more than 250 miles between charging stops. Once they have that down to all routes supported with no leg longer than 200 miles, ICE cars will be even worse choice (higher cost) for longer range travel and the cheaper smaller range up to 200 miles EVs will be just as practical as the current long range 300+ mile EVs. The charging speed at Superchargers has never felt like a problem to me because after 200-300 miles of driving (generally < 30-45 minutes), I'm ready for a break and the Supercharger locations tend to be much nicer places to stop than traditional Gas Station stops. So is Audi's approach for e-Tron good? It could be, but they need to have charging infrastructure that has charging stations for all routes within 150-200 miles of each other for their shorter range EV. The real question for companies like Tesla / Audi etc is whether they should be working on doubling vehicle range (from 200-300 to 400-600) or if they should be doubling the Supercharger (equivalent) charging locations for all routes from within 300 miles or less of each other to within 150 miles or less of each other.

[@joewilder]

The charging strategy of limiting capacity has been used on the Chevy Volt right from the beginning. It's why their batteries last so long. While e-tron charging has some positives, it's a long way from a home run. 204 miles when your competitor is approaching 400 isn't going to cut it.

[@renevanlandeghem1973]

For once, I totally disagree. For everyday use I charge at home from 5kW max charge capacity. For long trips I need 1 or 2 rapid charges (for road trips maybe 3), but not once did I get to the charger with high state of charge. And also I tend to do a quick calc to see how much I need to charge to get to the next rapid charger... normally I do not need to charge to 100%. Mostly 80-90% will do. Yes it tapers of at the end, but I am not really bothered. During rapid charging Intend to have a coffe, read a book, walk, eat... Seems to me that lugging around a big battery, that reduces efficiency because of extra weight, and not being able to use the full capacity, just means that you will need more charging sessions! And yes, if you need to charge that often, maybe it is nice to not have the taper. But I would prefer being able to use most of my battery cap, and be able to do more trips without rapid charging and just charge slowly at home while sleeping

[@AleixPellicer]

Sorry but considering Audi got fast-charging right just because they leave some empty space doesn't sound right to me...

[@nycameleon]

This is where that 400 mile Tesla makes sense, if you do a speed test to charge to 200 miles it will bury the etron

[@earthwizz]

You're not comparing apple with apples here. True comparison is the speed range is acquired. A Tesla at 80% charge will go further than an Audi at 100% charge and will do that 80% charge faster than an Audi's 100% charge.

[@HenriZwols]

But the Audi is a SUV while Tesla's are sedans. Obviously they will drive more efficient.

[@earthwizz]

@@HenriZwols X is an SUV. In any case we're discussing charging rates not driving efficiency.

[@HenriZwols]

@@earthwizz "A Tesla [you didn't specify which one] at 80% charge *will go further* than an Audi at 100% charge" How far a car will drive is determined by the amount of charged energy and by driving efficiency. You brought it up.

[@earthwizz]

​@@HenriZwols Sorry, I was a bit flippant and that's uncalled for but I felt I did specify. I meant all of them and, as I said, the X is an SUV. Driving efficiency has always been basic for the completely EV focused, therefore aerodynamic, Tesla. That and battery efficiency along with superior electronics contributes to Tesla's much faster charging experience. Audi have always made excellent ICE cars. The Etron is a good effort but they have a lot to learn about EVs. Repurposing ICEVs is a bit like the horseless carriage phase of motor vehicles. We soon realised our vehicles didn't have to look like something pulled by a horse and now we know they don't have to look like they're carrying an ICE. It's an entirely different vehicle.

[@dkositsky]

Nikki i think that audi missed the boat on range. If you were going on a long car trip. And you were comparing an MX, or model 3 vs an etron, you would be very much slower in an Audi. Tesla M3 would charge initially faster than Audi then tapper off but still have more range when it started to slow down substantially. Tesla would go with more range sooner than etron. By the time the second refill was needed by audi, tesla would be miles ahead and gaining time. Look at tesla bjorn vidio on audi vs tesla charging. Audi created a Turkey of a car due to its inefficiency and range issues. It is nice that it had a longer sustained charge speed but that would only matter if you did not have an overnight place to charge. Yet if I can get more miles in for the same charging time by managing my charging (only doing so when my charge is low), i will spend less time charging with a tesla. I wonder if the etron GT will be better. Let's face it, etron may just live up to its name. Please put more research into you otherwise thoughtful videos. I actually disagree with you on this particular video. Think about it. It actually might discurage folks from ever getting an electric car because of its poor range and inefficiency. This is an expensive car for such a short range.

[@JaredHatfield]

Agreed. Take this as constructive criticism. This is a departure from the otherwise excellent and unbiased content.

[@mikee6114]

Nikki, you can just charge a Tesla to 70% and you still have more range than the Audi at 100%. With Tesla you are at least given the choice. The Audi charge rate over time seems contrived by management, rather than what you'd expect from the physics of a battery.

[@johnco781]

What Audi doing is just like the potato chips company. You pay full price for a bag of chips. But, half of the bag is filled with air.

[@davidhiley3040]

Have to disagree here. I don't want my EVs range reduced so that the vehicle can charge at a "uniform rate". EV owners primarily charge enough to get to their next destination. The Tesla Model 3 charges faster than the Audi when it matters most - at low states of charge. And it's efficiency means you'll be able to unplug and get to your destination sooner than with the Audi. Tesla Bjorn showcases that - 1200kmh at 180kW in the Model 3 versus 600kmh at 140kW in the Audi on the same CCS2 station - kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoHVh42qr6akjpY. Also, DC fast charging is expensive. Why pay to charge to 100% when I can charge to 60, 70 or 80% to get to my final destination. No doubt the charging station operators will do well from the Audi with its poor efficiency. Savvy EV owners whose vehicles charger faster at lower SOC, have better efficiency and who only fast charge enough to get to there next destination will be the winners on time and money. I appreciate you're trying to put yourself in the mind of a petrol vehicle owner but that mindset disappears when you have a vehicle like a Tesla that tells you where you need to stop, how long you need to stop for and alerts you when your car is ready to go. If you're an owner of a short range EV I can understand the psychology of wanting to charge to 100% just in case but that's not how it works when the car has optimised the charging for you to get to your destination as fast as possible. Yes, you can mindlessly charge to 100% every time but you can also mindlessly leave it up to the car work it out for you. Given the high cost and weight of batteries I'd rather pay for EVs with smart software than extra battery that is only there to increase charging rates at high SOC rather than actually be used to give your more range.

[@johnchartrand5910]

comparing a small sedan to a luxury suv, nope, compare it to the S or X

[@michaelenglund]

Audis solution is quite stupid while other cars have the same solution, just charge to 80%. But then really needed, other cars can charge upp to 95-100%. Audi is wasting battery capacity on earth while making too large cars. I am used to much more clever news on this channel.

[@motozest7856]

What's the point of offering a faster-charge-speed-when-the-battery-is-almost-full when the range is laughable? You'll have to charge a lot more frequently, so any theoretical advantage in terms of ownership experience is just an illusion...

[@imho7250]

Now that Bjorn has uploaded a video comparing the model 3 battery with 200 kw firmware vs Audi e tron with its standard firmware, disregarding which vehicle the battery is in, the real discussion is about which approach is best. Unfortunately there are no 80 kWh LG Chem high power batteries in any vehicle yet, so this 95 kWh is as close as we can compare right now. The 95 kWh LG Chem battery charges at a consistent rate up to 75%, the 80 kWh Tesla battery starts off at 500A (Max CCS2 limit), and reaches max safe voltage at 40% and reduces current. From there it is using maximum cell Volt to determine maximum current, and rides that till it reaches the preset charge limit. What we can’t see is that the LG Chem battery is nowhere near its max voltage until it’s almost at the preset charge limit. I hope Bjorn makes another video showing the charger screen for the e tron. That will show how little resistance to charge the high power LG Chem cells have. We already know the LG Chem cells last a long time when used conservatively, as they are in the e tron and Chevy Volt (not sure about Ioniq or Spark), but we have no idea how Tesla batteries will hold up to the intense heat during charging. The trick Tesla is using is that the hotter a lithium battery gets, the easier it is for the Li ions to swim across the electrolyte ocean between the electrodes. This allows more charge current before the cell reaches 4.2v. The LG Chem makes it easier for their Li ions to swim across by making the distance shorter and giving more Electrode area to dock at. The drawback of high power cells is that they hold less energy by volume and weight. The Panasonic cells are about as close as you can get to most effective combination of power and energy. LG Chem, like any battery company, can let their client choose which battery they want, depending on the application. The next question is which cost more, an 80 kWh LG Chem battery using high power cells, or a 80 kWh Tesla battery using medium power cells? Cost is going to be a big factor. The new Hyundai Ioniq will reportedly nerf its battery using LG Chem low power cells, and a lower pack voltage, so it will charge slow, taper early, and if you pay to charge by the minute, prepare to bend over. The real discussion is which battery is best for an affordable car. The answer is, that battery isn’t here yet. Tesla fans think it’s right around the corner with some Maxwell secret sauce. Others think solid state batteries are just around the corner. We shall see who makes the first battery pack for under $100/kWh that checks all the boxes for charge speed, degradation, and power.

[@josephschmidt6106]

Good idea Audi, change the numbers calling 80% 100% and boom fast charging up to 100%

[@mr88cet]

Hmmm... Not sure I see why I buy that sacrificing range all the time, to allow faster charger toward the end is an advantage. That, since I comparatively rarely take long road trips.

[@Telcontarnz]

The added benefit is that the maximum range will be constant if Audi manage the ‘release’ of battery to counter any degradation. As degradation can be a big impact in 2nd hand market.

[@gremy1987]

The problem here is that you are lock to use 70 to 80% of the battery. If you charge the Tesla to the same range let's see who gets it faster. So this is just a trick not a feature.

[@andrewpoulton5308]

Set the default charge limit to 80% with the option to override it with a popup message explaining that charging above 80% is slow. Best of both worlds, fast charging sessions but no sacrifice on range if needed. Surely if Tesla is happy for you to charge to 100% (4.2V per cell I think) then this have been proven to give minimal degradation?

[@MrORIGIN63]

A recent real-world DC charging test by Bjørn Nyland clearly shows the Tesla Model 3’s significant charging advantage over the Audi e-tron. Even on a CCS charger, which doesn’t take full advantage of the Tesla’s potential, the Model 3 performs much better. The Tesla Model 3 Long Range adds 179 miles (288 km) of highway range in 20 minutes, 61% more than the Audi e-tron’s 111 miles (179 km).

[@pauleplatt]

Wow, this is the first time I've watched one of your videos and thought "What BS." My Model 3 has the same EPA range as the E-Tron when the Model 3 is charged to 63%. The real metric is which is faster - Audi to 100% or Model 3 to 63%? I strongly suspect it will be the Tesla. If it is on a V3 charger it will be the Tesla by a lot. User experience? My Tesla routes me and tells me how long to charge. I don't think about percentage of charge as much as the time till I can be on my way. The E-Tron has a very large battery and pitiful range. Put it in winter with the heat on and you will wish you had another 100 miles of rated range.

[@michaelrch]

I disagree. You can learn how to manage a battery. It takes about a month. You can never ever unlock the battery capacity that Audi have hidden from you. It's like forcing everyone to ride bikes with stabilisers... not cool.

[@kaasman78]

It's a very expensive way of Audi to compensate for the disastrous efficiency. The Audi would have been worse with a normal sized battery. They added the big reserve for degradation buffer and to give a slightly different charging feel. Similar I may add, to Tesla when dealing with software limited packs. Like some of the 60kWh ones. In the end...it doesn't matter how many kWs you charge with....it's about the amount of km/miles added in a certain time frame. The Model 3 reigns supreme in that department. Bjorn nyland posted a charging cycle between an Audi and Model 3. Both on 350kW charger. Only at the very end the Audi catches up....when on a trip the Model3 demolishes the Audi. The little extra at the top is not necessary.

[@wavey61]

I see what you're saying from a user experience standpoint. However this means limiting range (as you've said). A better solution would be to have automakers do what Audi does as a default, and bury an "advanced mode" DEEP within the settings so those that are more tech savvy can use more of the battery as needed.

[@joewhip9303]

I am sorry, but this is a nonsensical argument. When I am on a long trip, I want to use at a minimum 90 percent of my battery. Can’t do that with the Enron. I can only use 90 percent of 80 percent of my battery. How is this better? If I want to stop at 80 I can with my Tesla. Also, who knows how well Audi batteries will hold up after multiple charges. These cars have not been on the road long enough to know. I think you need to rethink this video.

[@akk8480]

At 4:05 you are wrong. There has been no change to the charge limits in model S and X. 100% has always been 4.2V cell voltage.

[@FascinatingFellow]

Just today I charged my Tesla Model 3 at an urban supercharger. It charged at 70 KW all the way from under 20% to 80%. So it appears that Tesla also performs Nikki's ideal charging profile. Though I do personally prefer the enroute superchargers that put out 150 KW for part of the charge. Just my preference.

[@MegaSparkinator]

Sorry, I have to disagree - a little bit. While I agree with the point about quick overall charge time and experience, there are several flaws here: - unlike gas cars, you shouldn’t typically charge to 100 % at a level 3 charging station. It’s harder on the battery, you only need enough charge (+20%) to get you home or to the next charging spot, it takes too long, and it’s unfair to other users. - This is a BEV. Not a gas car. You need to have a new mindset to go with your new ride. - This is a miner place-in-time scenario. Soon charging times will rival gas car fill-up times and we will forget the times we cared about this issue. Overall, I continue to be impressed with the basic quality of the product produce here at Transport EVolved. Thank you for all the hard work and great / accurate reporting.

[@transportevolved]

Thanks for disagreeing civilly! :) You're right people SHOULDN'T charge to 100%. But they WILL. Then you have to decide if it's more important to change people's attitudes (which can be costly and problematic) or just essentially 'nanny' them?

[@gzcwnk]

Well done on the channel. Its a pleasure to find and listen to a presenter/journalist hows knows her stuff and presents it well, so many videos are frankly close to useless.

[@andrasbiro3007]

No, Tesla is doing it right. Especially as they move away from kWh and kW to miles and miles per hour/minute. For example the Model 3 Standard Range on a v3 supercharger can charge at 10-11 miles per minute up to 70%. The Long range can charge faster from a low stat of charge, 75 miles in 5 minutes and 180 miles in 15 minutes. If there are superchargers at less then 150 miles apart, you simply don't need more range. 180 miles at 65mph is almost 3 hours, plenty enough time without stopping. Another very important thing to remember is that charging speed only matters when you are on a long trip, otherwise you just plug in the car where you spend time anyway, and don't worry about it. After driving my Model S for 6 months I don't have range anxiety at all, most of the time I don't even think about charging. I can't charge at home, but fortunately I can at work and in 8 hours I just about get back what I use for commuting, so I rarely have to charge elsewhere, and even that is much simpler, faster and more convenient then visiting a gas station. And way cheaper too (mostly free). Even on long trips I don't worry much about charging anymore, I quickly learned how far the car can go and where are the chargers. And if the next charger is further away, I just have to drive slower to significantly extend my range, and the car even warns me to do that. You have to do something really stupid to run out of juice. So it's really not a big deal, you just have to know a few simple numbers first, and with a little experience you can forget the math and just guesstimate. I don't know about the US, but here in Hungary you can't get your driver's license without knowing the basics about ICE car maintenance. That's a lot more complicated then knowing how to charge an EV. Plus, knowing how to take care of a Li-ion battery is usefull knowledge in general, because more and more device is powered by one. Your smatphone for example. If you plan to use it for several years, it's a good idea to treat it like an EV battery and avoid charging it to 100%. It's even more important for notebooks, because those are easy to use plugged in, but that kills the battery very fast. Then there are drones, e-bikes, RC toys, cameras, smartwatches, and many more things that people use regularly. Knowing how to take care of a Li-ion battery saves you a ton of money and headache.

[@stephenlogsdon8266]

Charging done right? Are you kidding? They give you 75% with no option to go all the way. Really dumb caption and points.

[@marcakko2010]

Well said

[@MyRealNameIs]

The E-tron charging characteristics are aiming at fossil drivers that are new to BEV's. Therefore I totally undertand Audi's choice in this. But experienced BEV's owners, know how to optimize the charge time because of their experience. Both approaches have something to say for. But as a consumer I would prefer the option to have more range rather than shorter charging times, you can't increase the range but you can lower your charging time by choice.

[@davemartin9912]

Let me see if I've got this straight. I should pay more for a vehicle with a larger battery capacity so I can use less of it in order to maintain a constant rate of charge. In spite of the fact that I'll add less range per minute of charge (see cleantechnica.com/2019/06/12/sorry-audi-but-tesla-model-3-crushes-audi-e-tron-in-fast-charging-times-charts/). If new EV owners are really that disinterested in the physics of the charging process (and I don't doubt it), odds are they will just take whatever time estimate their charging or route planner app gives them and never pay any attention to the actual charge rate.

[@EVPaddy]

Yep, I agree. Especially Tesla's approach is too 'techie'. 'You can charge to a 100%, but you shouldn't too often, and please don't let the car sit at that state of charge, drive off soon' ... etc. Far too complicated. Hyundai does it better in the Kona. Just charge to 100%, it's fine. (I still don't do it, but that's because I am a techie'. Audi has pretty much nailed it - and is getting a lot of hate from the Tesla fanboys for it ;)

[@transportevolved]

Nikki here - I view the 'Hilltop Mode' charge on my Bolt EV as it being 'full'. I'd change the fuel gage to reflect that if I could. [EDIT]

[@williampelzer1460]

You can see it both ways, I own an old leaf but probably aspire to owning a Tesla. Two things that strike me about all of this is first the artificial distinction is like having training wheels on your bike, after a while because you know they're there and that the bike (car in this case) is capable of so much more it eventually becomes an irritant. Secondly Audi may eventually make more of the battery available but I suspect at a hefty price. We all want the ability to choose the best charging profile for a given use case, Audi are being unnecessarily restrictive and also treating their consumers like children by not giving them the option to choose... Why not have a default which does this and give the option to switch it off while warning the driver that it will take longer to charge to full?

[@EVPaddy]

@@transportevolved Hey Nikki. I couldn't really find what the range mode is. Is is it something different than eco mode? I dive the Kona in ECO mode mostly because in the other modes it has just too much power for the FWD. Well, even in ECO you have to be careful. I guess it's the same in the Bolt.

[@transportevolved]

@@EVPaddy Sorry - too early in the morning before coffee and trying to answer three things at once. I meant to say "HillTop Mode"

[@EVPaddy]

@@williampelzer1460 well, ok, let it have a 'jailbreak' mode for geeks. But normal people just don't wan to bother. It's also a question of psychology. I hear the Tesla people discussing their degradation all the time. a Kona still has (probably, at least the Ioniq does) 100% energy available after 100'000 km. Of course it has degradation, but you don't notice because it's just the buffer that became smaller.

[@keileung5567]

seems psychological. probably similar amount of time to charge to certain range (in miles) but still user experience is an important factor

[@cusman]

They could give user interface to set charging level like Tesla does. Default it to the level Audi is comfortable with, warn about increasing it from that level (like Tesla does) and otherwise let users that wouldn't bother changing setting to never know any different.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

It's psychological with miles left to empty, most cars you can still drive when there are zero miles. But psychology you still think zero is zero.

[@paulcummings55]

A home run for Audi's fast charging? No- more like a magic trick. And that is all this is- a trick with charging only a much smaller part of the battery. A better comparison would be how fast does a Tesla charge the first 200 miles of its pack- the difference is, when you need it, you can fully charge and have another 100 miles of range. No- this is a big thumbs down on Audi's shell game with their supposedly fast charging. And while there may be some who are 'happy' with this consistent fast charge, most won't be taken in by this sleight of hand- at least, I hope most are smarter than that...

[@V8KILR1]

Even with Audi with-holding some of the battery capacity, the Tesla cars still add much more miles per minute of charging. Losing range for the illusion of faster charging is stupid.

[@EnlightenedSavage]

You assume too much. The charging you refer to is misleading. The amount miles charged in a given amount of time is a better measure of how fast your charging is. Tesla is still king with that measurement. Taper is for now necessary and this is to protect the longevity of the batteries. We will see in the long run how the Audi batteries last with this charging scheme. From what I know, this will turn out poorly for those Audi owners.

[@richardlinares6314]

I couldn't disagree with you more. This, "It's so much faster for Audis to get to 100%... of their 80% usable capacity" argument is ridiculous(I'm not sure how much Audi software limited their capacity so "80%" is a guess). But you mentioned charging the Audi to 80%? So is that 80% of 80%? So 64%? I think Tesla went the better route, and any Tesla driver can just set what percentage they want to use.

[@satnitcboy]

I get your point but disagree with the idea. There are "best practices" for getting the most out of the fuel you put into an iCE vehicle, but how many people follow them, or know the difference? I think if it were my car I'd like to have the full range available when I need it, even though I'd set my parameters at 80% top for daily driving. When on the road, especially a road where there might not be charging facilities within 80% of my range for a while yet (I'm talking the hundreds of thousands of miles of roadway that are far off the Interstate Highway path), I'd like to have that final 20%. Even if I make that sort of trip only once a year, knowing I could do it might make the difference in my purchasing an EV or not. That said, a lot of people don't like to think.

[@rushabhshah9530]

What’s the point of lugging around all that weight when you cannot use it. This parlor trick just allows one to think they are charging much reduced capacity faster. Surprised you agreed with that....

[@transportevolved]

It may be (at least seems to be based on what we know about batteries) to ensure long-life.

[@rushabhshah9530]

Transport Evolved that’s probably true but it’s still a poor approach. It takes paid for capacity away from drivers and locks it away. Tesla’s approach to educate is way better. I wouldn’t tout it as if they figured out better technology or approach. At beat it’s a poor hack that doesn’t give owners access to battery capacity they paid for. At worst it’s another deceptive tactic from the geniuses that gave us dieselgate to show their battery charges faster.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Rushabh Shah Tesla fanboy complaining another manufacturer takes away "paid" for capacity... Meanwhile Tesla has been doing that for years. Same battery pack in cars yet with different capacity depending on if you want to spend the premium to access it.

[@rushabhshah9530]

Robert my dear simpleton, I want capacity I paid for. In Tesla’s approach they told you that you have an option to get the same car for less and in future unlock that capacity for a price. For Audi they just assumed you are an idiot and should be allowed to access only 80% of battery for the full price! I am really rooting for VW to succeed here but won’t settle for parlor tricks!

[@techdivetv2994]

My question would be, if my Model 3 can charge to 325 miles and Audi only charges to 204 miles, how many more times will I need to charge the Audi

[@jefflaurence6612]

So I should call an 80% charge %100 and Pat myself on the back for beating everyone else on charging my car to full. Sorry, what?????

[@fatboy19831]

The problem with what Audi is doing is I would rather have the option of having 230 miles of range in an emergency vs being limited to 206 miles. For instance, I can go from 50 miles 200 miles in my 325 mile Tesla 3 on the 125kw charger in less than 20 min. In 40 minI can be at 300 + miles if I need that range. With the V3 charger, 10 min will get me 150 miles. No way the Audi can go from 50 miles to 200 miles in 10 min. Not even in 30 min.

[@ram64man]

You forgot one thing Audi limit the dc part of ccs to just one side yet allow the 11kw connector on both, why on earth did they limit this, it’s not a fuel port it’s a plug a glorified kettle on steroids

[@rgbii2]

So they give a better user experience by misleading the consumer into thinking the batteries full, when it's not. I think in the long run, educating people on how a EV batteries charge would be a better choice. They are paying for the batteries in the vehicle and I'm sure most would want that extra range.

[@alecgrolimond1678]

Thank you for stating correctly that the Audi does not charge fully. I wondered if you would miss that WELL DONE. If I had an EV I would want it's life. I do the same with my Flinstone gas burning car.

[@pvphoto1]

So, you tell the buyer that they have a smaller battery so that it appears to charge faster?

[@t43562]

.. and so that it lasts longer and so that the "fill up time" is predictable and quick. Then since a lot of your customers may be charging from home and doing short daily commutes they never notice the difference.

[@gsilva220]

What we're seeing here, with electric cars charging in 20-30 minutes, is actually gonna be the norm. Batteries are not electricity storage devices, they are chemical energy storage devices, coupled to two-way electrochemical converters. This means that there is one energy conversion when the battery is being charged, and another conversion when it is discharged. Both these conversions have inherent power limits due to their nature.

[@BSAT10]

General rule of thumb with 2018 leaf take the current state of charge and subtract that from 100 and that will tell you what to expect from the charging unit ie if you are at 80% charge you will probably be limited by the BMS to charging at less than 20Kw/h

[@marklewisduncombe]

I am with Nikki on the Audi. In the UK, typical average journey speeds are 40-50mph, even with a motorway when you include the non-motorway bits at either end. So 200 miles takes 4 hours. After 4 hours (if not sooner) most normal people would need a comfort break and have to or want to stop. If you have to stop then you might as well charge and if you are charging then you want to be charging as fast as possible during said comfort break, preferably 150KW and with very little rate drop off. This makes total sense, I can't and don't want to go 500 miles without stopping. Having owned an EV for a few years now the best charge is the charge that happens while you are doing something else. When vehicle range exceeds bladder range (reduces with age) then charging speed becomes more important than outright range.

[@RichardSewill]

Let people charge to 100% at home using the Level 1 or Level 2 charging since this charging is relatively gentle on the battery. Have the DC fast chargers charge to 80% since the last 20% can only be charged at a slower rate to be gentle on the battery. Give two estimated driving range numbers for electric vehicles on the car sticker. Give the 80% charge estimated driving range. Give the 100% charge estimated driving range. Tell people what is happening, and why, so people aren't surprised. People are smart enough to understand the two estimated driving range numbers. People will learn to use the 100% estimated range around town, and the 80% estimated range on long trips. Eventually, electric vehicles will have a 400 mile estimated range, or more, when 100% charged. This calculates to a 400*.80 or 320 mile estimated range when charged to 80% using a DC fast charger. People will only become frustrated with Audi when they learn how much of the battery they are paying for they can't use.

[@transportevolved]

While we'd disagree that everyone is smart enough to get this - it's the best solution to only allow 80% and give slower-longer charges on a slower charging station.

[@CarbonMotorsEU]

Absolutely agree about Audi's charging strategy being better! Charging time is relevant for usability. In the near future building would be able to exchange electricity with cars and drivers would not notice that they need to charge. Of course if the speed at which that happens is higher. In fact, in Norway there are buildings that get a charge from EV cars during working hours while the cars are parked. FULLY CHARGED have a story on that. The charging speed is relevant for in-city driving and even more for out of city charging. Thanks for the video!

[@nicolausgollwitzer9827]

I disagree with your point of view. Rather than letting customers pay for 100% and then blocking 20% of the capacity to ensure a more "ICE-like" charging behaviour, I'd prefer that money to be spent for customer education. Moreover, you need to compare miles of range per minute of charging rather than kW as this is the practical metrics for the driver. Again, Audi offers a laughable performance here. BTW, I live close to the Audi HQ in Germany and there are a number of service companies refusing to take orders from Audi engineers, because they have the image of knowing everything better while really not knowing anything at all. Taking a sizeable amount of the battery capacity away from the customers assuming that they are too stupid to use it wisely anyway fits this prejudice perfectly J

[@transportevolved]

In an ideal world everyone would get it - but let's be honest. How long has it taken to educate people on how to use any of the following: 1) Electric cars in general (many consumers still believe misinformation, or just don't want to know). 2) Cruise control (we've met plenty of people who don't use Cruise control because they don't understand or trust it) 3) Semi autonomous driver assistance features (the number of people who abuse these is astonishing).

[@imho7250]

Nicolaus Gollwitzer, they aren’t blocking capacity to make the car behave more like an ICE vehicle when charging. They do it to increase life of the battery and to allow regen with a “fully charged” (but not really) battery. Tesla gives you the option to degrade your battery early by charging it to 100%, or charging to 90% or 80% if you want the battery to last longer. Audi knows you can’t have a solid warranty while letting the owner decide how to abuse the battery. If you watch Kman Auto, you will see he abused his battery on his model S, and now his S90D has 72 kWh of capacity, and Tesla has no degradation warranty on that battery, so they will not replace it. Now all he can do is try to break the battery before the 8 years are up so Tesla will replace it.

[@nicolausgollwitzer9827]

@@imho7250 Not sure what individuals have done to break their battery. It's a fact that many Teslas drive around with 300k miles and more without any noticeable battery degradation. Something that Audi still has to prove. My MS has lost 3% of battery capacity after 70k miles, which again is practically nothing

[@nicolausgollwitzer9827]

@@transportevolved sad but true. However, no car oem lets you order and pay for cruise control and then disables it in the factory only because the drivers aren't using it the right way.

[@imho7250]

Nicolaus Gollwitzer, supercharging too much because it’s free. Charging to 100% every time degrades it. Best way to break it is take it 0% and 100% as much as possible. You can check out Sean Mitchell’s video on his battery failure.

[@imho7250]

@2:20 it’s not harder to push electrons, and it’s not about heat or wasting energy, it’s about pushing the battery cell voltage above their maximum safe limit, and giving a buffer to prevent degradation. All chargers shift from constant current to constant voltage once the voltage gets to a certain point. The current is limited to prevent any cell from exceeding maximum voltage, typically 4.2v. Ask Rich Rebuilds how hard it is to send current into a lithium ion battery. R.I.P. Daisy. This is what happens when you use a 48v lead acid battery charger which will charge to 55-59v to charge a 12s lithium pack which should have a maximum voltage of 50.4v, and that’s only if the bricks are all balanced.

[@MarkLLawrence]

I wonder if the extra capacity can be unlocked in an emergency over the air. As it's obviously not even close to using it's full capacity there should be plenty to open up in time of need.

[@steveclark3294]

Audi methods would be great but realistically you should look at Miles charged per minute and then you'll see that a new tesla model s 100D would be much better for the same money...

[@touringsedan]

We should only compare miles gained in range per minute. The e-tron goes 204 miles roughly on a full charge and the LR Model 3 325, even with slower charge rate and more aggressive taper off, the Tesla will win hands down. The e-tron will likely be forced to use Pay-Per-Minute charging at much higher rates than a Tesla, which charges by kWh gained, not by minute. It might also be important to note that long term reliability of the e-tron's batteries are non existent and only the future will tell if the nominal battery utilization will compensate for the higher rate of charge with minimal degredation.

[@dhincks1]

Funny I had herd the #'s Audi had published were cooked and not accurate. They had used unverified #'s & inaccurate graphs to back it up.

[@eddiegardner8232]

For either of these vehicles, this kind of charging only matters for longer trips. IF you primarily use the vehicle as a daily driver, and charge at home, either charging profile works just fine, and range isn't an issue. You can run your battery in the constant-current part of the cell's charging curve and extend its lifetime well into the next decade. Not too many people are going to have a 350KW charger in their house anyway, or need one to charge up to 200 miles of range onboard overnight.

[@gardreropa]

My Ioniq bev tapers off at 77%... there's a rumour that its declared 28 kWh capacity is nominal, not total, so nothing new here for me. Still, it's another great video from you madam Nikki! Thank you!

[@christalbot210]

I still like my idea of indicating an 80% charge to be 100% so it can be done quickly. Then have the option of charging to 120%, but indicate doing so will take longer and possibly degrade the battery if done frequently. That way, people get the idea that their car is "full" after a relatively short time. However, if they feel they need the extra miles for a long trip (and have the time), they can "overcharge" (a woefully inaccurate term, but works for our purposes) their car to do so. Personally, I think that should be standard with Tesla, but give the user the option to switch the scale to 80%/100% instead if they want.

[@chrisweech7382]

When road tripping in a Tesla, we don't usually need to charge beyond 80% because that gives enough range to get to the next supercharger, but we have the option of getting more range from a charge if we really need it. For a Model 3 SR+ with 240 mi EPA range (the lowest Tesla range, using only 50 kWh of batteries), 80% charge = 192 miles, which is 94% of the e-tron's EPA range (using a whopping 95 kWh pack). But the Model 3 SR+ owner has the ability to leave home on that road trip with 240 mi of EPA range compared to the e-tron which will never be able to get more than 204 mi EPA range. How is that a better user experience?

[@johnchartrand5910]

comparing a small sedan with a ton of road noise to a luxury suv, try again, compare it to the X, S, Jag etc

[@chrisweech7382]

@@johnchartrand5910 If you prefer a Model X comparison to the e-tron, that's fine. Substitute Model X 75D for Model 3 SR+. They have the same 240 mi EPA range, and 80% of that is still 94% of the e-tron's range. My point that you don't normally need to charge a Tesla more than 80%, even on a road trip, still holds. And if you need more range, you can take a little more charging time to get it. You can't get more range in the brutally inefficient e-tron. The Model 3 is not a small sedan. It's classed as a mid-size sedan that seats 5 comfortably, just like the e-tron. And what does road noise have to do with range, charging speed, or long-distance driving practicality?

[@ronfischer191]

it is actually a brilliant idea, and really will not affect most people most of the time. As to the road trip comments you actually will get to where you are going faster if you only charge to 80% and move on then trying to fill up. It goes against our lizard brains, but it actually works and for those that are not early adopters they won't even know this is happening and probably be thrilled that their car fast charges to "full" faster then anybody else!

[@hoghorne1375]

Why charging time of the final 20% matters so much when it's both unhealthy to the batteries and not that much needed in daily life? Oh I see. Because e-tron has an etron (in French) capacity.

[@zodiacfml]

lol. the second I heard the feature, I knew it was about the 80% capacity! I've never heard of a mainstream lithium ion battery to defeat that. Tesla might as well advertise it as a feature in their software limited/locked battery capacities where these cars rapid charge to full at high charging rates.

[@luisfernandes4145]

Acording to Teslabjørn's test, the diference betwen e-tron and model 3 isn't that big. Adding the efficiency, so long Audi.

[@Yetifile]

Yea. It is doing people a diservice to assume they wont notice that other cars put on more range than the audi can manage in less time, just because the % number is bigger on the audi. People are not stupid and I have already seen this info spreading in my none EV literate aquantances.

[@luisfernandes4145]

@@_PatrickO this is just about charging speed (kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoHVh42qr6akjpY), about other matters, the only other thing Audi is good at, is quality building, still has a lot to catch, but are in a good way, i think.

[@jonshygye5005]

You got it wrong. Check out the time to charge to 100 miles and to 200 miles. The Tesla takes less time to charge for the additional range than the Audi.

[@jonshygye5005]

Look at cleantechnica.com/2019/05/17/correcting-audi-tesla-model-3-charges-over-2-times-faster-than-audi-e-tron/

[@vince.olivier]

Aren’t there 2 downsides here? This requires bigger batteries to leave a portion unused while there’s apparently a battery shortage right now in part due to availability of raw materials. Also, there’d be less stress on the battery to reach full charge but more stress on the portion that’s always used. Just off the top of my head.

[@transportevolved]

Generally the stress is greater at the higher end of the charging cycle, because of the higher temperatures produced as internal resistance rises. But you're right. It does require a larger battery -- but as we've said, maybe a larger battery could result in less battery issues over the life of the car? Imagine a 20-year old e-tron which still does the same range as new? The Chevy Volt famously didn't use all of its battery pack, and there are 8+ year old cars out there with 100+k miles still producing the same range.

[@vince.olivier]

Transport Evolved Fair point. I’d go for that. Thanks for answering.

[@salipander6570]

Tesla's way of limiting the max charge via its menu is much more sensible. you can choose to fully charge if you want/need to. Having a big invisible buffer in the battery is a waste of resources. I would be frustrated having an e-tron with such a limited range, knowing it can give you another 15%... As a matter of fact, the wear&tear on the e-tron's battery may be higher due to its high consumption: one needs more charges. This may be the main reason they have taken a big safety margin on the capacity - they may even know the numbers on that and got worried... Simpletons - lol!

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Salipander ErisGeenAnder Batteries wear faster when charged to full every time. So the degradation will be less than a tesla.

[@salipander6570]

@@Robert-cu9bm Yes, but if you need more charging sessions over time (due to the high consumption), the net result after some time can still be that the e-tron's degradation is not better. It may be the main reason that they play on the very safe side.

[@Tokamak3.1415]

Nikki probably has a lot spoken to a lot more people interested in EVs as well as EV owners than most of have spoken with so she may have a point with average Joe customer wanting an experience closer to fueling their car with gas. But average Joe customer has to understand they no longer need to worry about oil changes, transmission fluid changes, smog checks - the list goes on. EVs are great for having less responsibility but the least a new EV owner could do is learn about the car for just 15 to 30 min. Otherwise we get that woman driving her Tesla to a gas station for fuel. People are getting behind 2+ ton vehicles that can get up to 100mph in 10 seconds, the least they could do is learn a little. I still believe driving is a privilege and not a right. However I don't agree with the premise. It's basically trying to point out a silver lining in an inferior battery system (I'm not saying VAG's battery systems are bad, but they're just not proven to be reliable as those in the Model S and X that have billions of real world miles). Realistically a supercharger should only be used when going on a longer than normal road trip (as a vast majority of drivers never drive more than 200 miles in a day). The only time this "refueling time" comes into play is therefor when people do long road trips. You can either go 204 miles in the etron before stopping at a V3 or 250-300 miles in the Tesla. The Tesla will require you spend an extra 20 min charging. If you're doing a day trip, for example, from LA to San Diego, the etron will require a V3 charge to get back home whereas the Tesla owner might not need to even visit a supercharger simply because they have those extra miles available to them. In a ICE vehicle it's not really a consideration since it's a 5-10 min detour for gas. The Tesla might be able to make it back home and recharge at night and be more comparable to the ICE vehicle (heck even better since the owner could have a full tank the next morning whereas the ICE vehicle might need gas time). Hence range is king The only way I could see this as ever being a plus for etron owners is those who are charged by minute for their V3 charger access or those speed demons who drive 85mph on a leased vehicle and couldn't care less how much strain they put on the battery because it will be somebody else's problem in 3 years. Those people could hot rod from one charger to the next. What's the point of even buying an EV then?

[@darkenergy5686]

With the last 20% when Supercharging on a trip, I can finish my meal in peace, rather than have to sprint to my car to unplug and move it. And most of my car's charging is done at home, so I am rarely hogging the Supercharger network anyway. Unavailable battery capacity is of no value to me.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Dark Energy A lot of people in Europe (where the car is from) don't have access to home charging, so fast chargers are the only way to charge.

[@darkenergy5686]

@@Robert-cu9bm Everybody's situation is different and there is no one shoe fits all. Even if I didn't have home charging, it would be a very rare time that I would want to DCFC to 100%. Nikki was praising Audi's decision to artificially make it appear as if their charging characteristics were superior by reducing the chargable capacity of the battery. I don't think enough emperical data has been offered to say if one design is better than another. For my situation, I have learned how the characteristics of my Model S 70 can be best managed to meet my needs. And I honestly can't see one reason to limit my usable battery capacity to make me think my vehicle choice is superior. If the Audi doesn't have tunable charge levels (a feature lacking in my Nissan Leaf and I hate that) then I feel they have an inferior design. And this holds true whether you have at home charging or not, in MY opinion.

[@MartinMenge]

That last bit of the charge will eventually be pushed into super-capacitors, which will in turn continue charging the battery at a slower rate once you drive away from the charging station. I suspect that Tesla's acquisition of Maxwell might bring this concept closer to reality. Where this becomes really exciting is with in-transit charging of some kind. Something like a siding on the highway, a charging lane maybe a kilometre long every 50 -100km. No need to slow down, just take the siding to get another 100km of range.

[@Groaznic]

Maybe public stations could refuse, or charge 5x the price to charge above 80%. People should get educated, even if it takes a stick to educate them.

[@offeraviad]

I’d rather have 100 miles more on a 95kwh pack than faster charging speed at the top of the battery. I disagree with you. 95kwh battery at 204 miles range is dumb and will not sell well.

[@HarveyPayne]

I'd rather be able to load in 200 miles faster even though the curve is not flat. That is what matters to me.

[@JBoy340a]

For those that say consumers don't want to think about percentage to charge then there is always the Tesla option. They come out the factory set to 90% max charge. An owner could just drive their whole ownership with the default setting. And when they plugged into a Supercharger or at home charging would stop at 90%. This has less impact on battery life and far less charge rate tapering then charging from 90-100%.

[@cordawg89]

Most Li ion batteries taper at 80%, the CCCV charge algorithm isn’t going to change just stops early. It’s not healthy to store batteries at 100% charge but if you are immediately discharging after then it’s fine. It is probably more time efficient to cut the charge at 80% and move onto the next station but let the user make that decision

[@stevenbarrett7648]

And that’s why the e-tron is a sub 200mi EV. Personally I would like to decide the amount of charge depending on the distance I need to travel, I don’t need Aunty Audi to decide range for me thanks.

[@NorthThird]

As most charging is done at home via level 2 charging, this is a cynical gimmick only used by the sales team to sell cars to the uninitiated.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

PostingCats The majority of people who buy new cars.

[@MrTiomanu]

I prefer more battery available and more range, audi´s choice is not for me

[@fergusburke7987]

In reality Audi have reduced the available battery capacity to give the illusion of faster charging. In effect they are dumbing down an already inferior system. I think EV drivers will adapt faster than Audi give them credit for. The driver should be allowed decide how much of the batery is availabe to use. Maybe have the default set at 85% but allow 100% to be selected in the event its needed.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Fergus Burke Drivers rarely get the choice on cars, car manufacturers have to warrant a vehicle, so make them reliable. Hence why you can chip a car and get more power. The extra ponies have always been there, just didn't have the access to them as it makes the car less reliable. And when you sell millions of vehicles you want your warranty costs to be low, so profit margins don't suffer. And clearly the majority don't care they just drive to what they have available.

[@thomasdalebring1412]

Just got my e-tron. Never had an EV. Went for my first long trip with IONITY charging and did not even have time to go to the restroom and eat a salad before it was full again. As you said, UX wins as I will do my charging at home 95% of the time... Edit: I agree with many other comments if I would go for a 2000 km drive, but then I would take the other car or wait for range and charging speed to evolve.

[@AscendedSaiyan3]

It would seem like miles per minute is more important than percentage of charge per minute. If I can get 75 miles of range in 5 minutes (16% charge), I would take that over 35 miles of range in 5 minutes (25% charge). Not to mention the extra price you have to pay for more even charge rates (something consumers REALLY typically aren't aware of or care about).

[@ralanham76]

Audi still can't be the charge rate of 2012 model X so this is a fail

[@johnchartrand5910]

How do you figure? Tesla can't charge at 150kw rate at 80% or 60%, try again