Official Hyundai Ioniq 5 topic

voltamps said:

I agree with those above essentially saying the Kona has awkward, but not "ugly" styling. The old Ioniq (not the new Ioniq5) & the Niro have always been OK, conservative styling. I think the recent Soul styling updates make it look kinda cool. All subjective of course.

As for the real topic of this thread, the Ioniq 5 (and it's cousin the Kia EV6) looks very cool. Most would agree with me on that. Pre-orders have already proven this to be true.

The Ariya will compete directly with all the new stuff coming out. It looks good too, so the market is getting competitive. Plenty of nice EVs coming out.

Click to expand...

I like all of them, but styling is always very personal... mostly.

To me the Ariya is a bit bulbus, which isn't bad, but I can't help thinking its targeted more toward the traditional (aka older) folks while the kia and Hyundai are looking for the younger folks. YMMV.

Good video of the Ioniq 5

The price he mentions is 44k US.

I like the outside but need to see the interior in person

https://youtu.be/vNZhDqoj8Ws

There has been a lot of discussion in the Ariya thread of the charging for Ionic 5. Here is some of the first real world data.

Some of this data is for the European version, which has a smaller battery - ~72 kWh?








https://insideevs.com/news/512917/hyundai-ioniq5-charging-analysis-ionity/

^^ That is NOT the C-rate. You have to know the nominal capacity.

These companies that make a larger part of the pack unusable have bamboozled the clueless media

SageBrush said:

^^ That is NOT the C-rate. You have to know the nominal capacity.

These companies that make a larger part of the pack unusable have bamboozled the clueless media

Click to expand...

Well, to prove a point to the media. Is there enough hacking know-how of the Leaf to make a large part of it's battery unusable and then pull up to a 50 kW QC and get the same 10->80 charge times? :lol:

It could help drive home the point to others. A lot us here understand what is going on with the hand-waving when it comes to these charge times, but sometimes it's easier to show people in practice than in theory.

knightmb said:

SageBrush said:

^^ That is NOT the C-rate. You have to know the nominal capacity.

These companies that make a larger part of the pack unusable have bamboozled the clueless media

Click to expand...

Well, to prove a point to the media. Is there enough hacking know-how of the Leaf to make a large part of it's battery unusable and then pull up to a 50 kW QC and get the same 10->80 charge times? :lol:

It could help drive home the point to others. A lot us here understand what is going on with the hand-waving when it comes to these charge times, but sometimes it's easier to show people in practice than in theory.

Click to expand...

Easy peasy. Call 5 kWh in the battery "15%" and call 15 kWh in the battery "80%"
IIRC the 30 kWh LEAF has a 150 Amp system. No problem getting a flat 1.9C charging curve.

Woohoo!! Nissan engineering at its finest, even 5 years ago a cut above the best that Tesla, Porsche, and even Hyundai have ever offered !!!!

SageBrush said:

Easy peasy. Call 5 kWh in the battery "15%" and call 15 kWh in the battery "80%"
IIRC the 30 kWh LEAF has a 150 Amp system. No problem getting a flat 1.9C charging curve.

Woohoo!! Nissan engineering at its finest, even 5 years ago a cut above the best that Tesla, Porsche, and even Hyundai have ever offered !!!!

Click to expand...

A little CAN-BUS hacking could probably do it and make it easy to film a charger doing some insane 10%->80% charge in 5 minutes :mrgreen:

Anyway, I know off-topic, I'll stop hijacking this topic.

If it’s true that Hyundai is achieving a higher fast charging speed by adding a much bigger buffer to the battery, why not instead lower the fast charging speed to a safer level and then make that buffer capacity into useable capacity? I have to think most people would prefer say 350 miles of range and 150 kW fast charging speed over 300 miles of range and 225 kW fast charging - faster charging is nice, but not having to stop and charge at all is nicer.

Kieran973 said:

If it’s true that Hyundai is achieving a higher fast charging speed by adding a much bigger buffer to the battery, why not instead lower the fast charging speed to a safer level and then make that buffer capacity into useable capacity? I have to think most people would prefer say 350 miles of range and 150 kW fast charging speed over 300 miles of range and 225 kW fast charging - faster charging is nice, but not having to stop and charge at all is nicer.

Click to expand...

There is no trade-off here, it is just marketing deception. A bigger buffer does not change the charge curve (kWh added over time). The big buffer is way more idiotic than you imagine.

SageBrush said:

Kieran973 said:

If it’s true that Hyundai is achieving a higher fast charging speed by adding a much bigger buffer to the battery, why not instead lower the fast charging speed to a safer level and then make that buffer capacity into useable capacity? I have to think most people would prefer say 350 miles of range and 150 kW fast charging speed over 300 miles of range and 225 kW fast charging - faster charging is nice, but not having to stop and charge at all is nicer.

Click to expand...

There is no trade-off here, it is just marketing deception. A bigger buffer does not change the charge curve (kWh added over time). The big buffer is way more idiotic than you imagine.

Click to expand...

I'm curious, what evidence do you have for the total capacity of the Ionic 5, and thus the size of the buffer?

Personally, if a bigger buffer gives a reduced degradation rate and/or allows usable capacity to be opened up over time to maintain 'as new' range, I'd prefer that, subject to the price, weight and volume difference. Guaranteed range over the whole ownership period is more important to me than max. range when new which will degrade significantly over time.

As to whether range or charging time is more important, just depends on the person, and they can be traded off to some extent depending on the available infrastructure and use case. Neither are adequate yet for my needs, but charging time is probably closer.

GRA said:

Personally, if a bigger buffer gives a reduced degradation rate

Click to expand...

It does not. It does not do *anything* other than remove a potion of the battery capacity from use, but that is a choice that the owner can make by not using it.

Remarkable how easy it is for marketers to dupe people.

SageBrush said:

GRA said:

Personally, if a bigger buffer gives a reduced degradation rate

Click to expand...

It does not. It does not do *anything* other than remove a potion of the battery capacity from use, but that is a choice that the owner can make by not using it.

Remarkable how easy it is for marketers to dupe people.

Click to expand...

I guess Jeff Dahn was also duping people when he said that for maximum longevity you should limit your SoC range to 30-70%. IIRR Elon said 30-80% about the same time. I'd trust Dahn's word over Elon's in this area.

Certainly charging to a high voltage and then leaving it there for longer periods of time is bad for most Li-ion chemistries.

Running the SoC way down is also generally not a good idea, varying by chemistry. That also accords with my experience of a variety of non-li-ion battery chemistries.

In addition, having a large buffer at both ends can eliminate worries about what the usable SoC range should be, for all the non-techies who don't get into this stuff - they can feel free to charge to any (usable) SoC between 0-100%, knowing that doing so won't cause accelerated degradation. This is a wasteful, brute-force approach, but until we get a battery, maybe one of the solid-state electrolyte types, that is as unaffected by SoC as an ICE's engine is by the amount of fuel you keep in the tank, it may be the most practical option.

Since you didn't answer it the first time, I'll repeat my question: What evidence do you have for the total capacity of the Ionic 5, and thus the size of the buffer? The info I've seen says 72.6 kWh usable of 77.4 kWh total, so they're using 93.8% of the total, or a buffer of just 6.2%, hardly a large buffer. Compare to the original Volt, which only used 65% of the total (10.4 kWh/16.0 kWh). Do you have other numbers for the Ionic 5?

GRA said:

I guess Jeff Dahn was also duping people when he said that for maximum longevity you should limit your SoC range to 30-70%.

Click to expand...

No duping by Dahn, but try to understand that he was not recommending that SoC range or making any assertion what degradation a different SoC range would cause.

I routinely charge my Tesla to 70% in the summer and 80% in the winter. I pre-charge to 100% before trips. I don't know what "maximum" longevity would be if I followed an ideal regime but my car battery has degraded ~ 2% in 3 years. An enforced buffer that prevented me from using the entire battery capacity on trips would not be my first choice. Or one of my first thousand choices. By the way, Dahn might also recommend charging at 1.5 kW for maximum battery longevity. I'm sure he would be right, but no one bothered to ask him what the difference in battery longevity is between that ideal and a regime of routine charging at 5 -- 10 kW and occasional charging to 75% SoC at a Supercharger.

Regarding Musk, he was not disagreeing with Dahn, he was answering a different question related to an optimization between battery longevity and customer convenience and utility. If you think that Dahn would recommend a 30% buffer for every battery so that capacity is *never* used, you are even more clueless than you let on.

And so once again you completely miss the point in the pursuit of debating hypotheticals. A very slight improvement over the hundreds of pages you labor on to rationalize your choices.

Sage

Is your 2% degradation measured by dash rated miles or by teslaspy?

DougWantsALeaf said:

Is your 2% degradation measured by dash rated miles or by teslaspy?

Click to expand...

Both

Kieran973 said:

If it’s true that Hyundai is achieving a higher fast charging speed by adding a much bigger buffer to the battery, why not instead lower the fast charging speed to a safer level and then make that buffer capacity into useable capacity? I have to think most people would prefer say 350 miles of range and 150 kW fast charging speed over 300 miles of range and 225 kW fast charging - faster charging is nice, but not having to stop and charge at all is nicer.

Click to expand...

Actually, thinking about this, there is an easier way. Modify the SoC so that 80% is really closer to a true 70% for example. Leaf (Gen 2) already does this when SoC gets below 50%, it starts to lie about the SoC to buffer more range near the end. It would be easier for Hyundai to modify how the SoC is reported from the Ioniq 5 than to mess with battery buffers, etc. That way, the total range can be high when actually driven, but the charging times appear to be lower because it can have a curve *after* 50% that with even a little modification, over time, makes it appear a few minutes faster on charging when comparing to similar systems.

Proof is in the pudding
https://youtu.be/FgqCyy53C_g?t=240

For those people unsure about what they are seeing,
the pack reaches 751 volts at a SoC labelled "100%". An 800v pack has 192 cells in series

Actually, thinking about this, there is an easier way. Modify the SoC so that 80% is really closer to a true 70% for example. Leaf (Gen 2) already does this when SoC gets below 50%, it starts to lie about the SoC to buffer more range near the end. It would be easier for Hyundai to modify how the SoC is reported from the IONIQ 5 than to mess with battery buffers, etc. That way, the total range can be high when actually driven, but the charging times appear to be lower because it can have a curve *after* 50% that with even a little modification, over time, makes it appear a few minutes faster on charging when comparing to similar systems.

Click to expand...

They could also make this a menu-selectable choice, like "Fast Charge Optimization On/Off."

LeftieBiker said:

They could also make this a menu-selectable choice, like "Fast Charge Optimization On/Off."

Click to expand...

That would open them to charges of false advertising. The label could be "Fast Charge Smoke & Mirror for the Feeble Minded On/Off."

SageBrush said:

Proof is in the pudding
https://youtu.be/FgqCyy53C_g?t=240

For those people unsure about what they are seeing,
the pack reaches 751 volts at a SoC labelled "100%". An 800v pack has 192 cells in series

Click to expand...

Very interesting and more technical video, thanks!
So @ 80% SoC, Voltage is 749, from 6% to 80% SoC put 56.8 kWh into the system. At 100% SoC, Voltage was at 751, 6% to 100% put 72.26 kWh into the system. Now if the total usable capacity of the battery is 72.6 kWh, 80% SoC would sit right around 58.1 kWH remaining. 6% would be around 4.4 kWH. 58.1 - 4.4 = 53.7 kWh to charge in a perfect world. The real world difference was 58.1 - 53.7 = 4.4 kWh. A 4.4 kWh difference is a lot of energy over 21 minutes. Linear relation, 4.4 kWh or 4400 watts over an hour, compressed to 21 minutes. Roughly 3x more watts or 13,200 watts for 21 minutes of energy lost....somewhere. Seems like battery melting energy even with the cooling system running at max. I don't know enough about the Ioniq 5. Maybe someone will do a break down the whole EV one day. :lol: