Awesome if true

[snstevens]

The world is always changing, and most people are not tied into forums like these or following technology development closely enough to impact their decision making.

Anybody who wants the best daily driver out there is still going to consider a Taycan, and will do nearly 100% of all their charging at home (I’m assuming the typical Porsche customer is not parking their car each night on the street of course).

Improved battery technology is a given over time, but it doesn’t impact people’s buying decisions on a day-to-day basis as much as their personal situation might. Of course, if someone has a greater than 200 mile daily commute then of course they need to have a battery that will provide that range, and the latest J1.2 does that.

Sponsored

 

[Vercingetorix]

Does the Taycan depreciate worse than a Panamera?

 

[ovonrein]

Much of a muchness.

 

[ovonrein]

and will do nearly 100% of all their charging at home

Odd assumption. In our paddock, the CT is the mile muncher. And nothing is more satisfying than when a HPC pushes 250kW into the battery at some motorway services far from home.

 

[prj]

Does the Taycan depreciate worse than a Panamera?

Nope, pretty much exactly the same.

But of course nobody compared it to a Panamera, everyone compares it to a 911 for some reason, which is a huge outlier.

 

[ovonrein]

Is it? Perhaps you have some rare 911 in mind. Your garden-variety 911 drops like a stone.

 

[snstevens]

Odd assumption. In our paddock, the CT is the mile muncher. And nothing is more satisfying than when a HPC pushes 250kW into the battery at some motorway services far from home.

The assumption is based on the fact that home charging is typically much cheaper.

In our area, the cost for home charging is 25%-35% of the cost of high speed charging. YMMV of course.

 

[trycan]

Not sure why you're getting pushback on the thread

Pushback because the claims made in the article are either fabricated BS, or at best the author is choosing to leave out some key pieces of information like it costs $100k, weighs 9000 lbs, or takes a year to manufacture.
We've seen too many of these "battery breakthrough" articles to be sufficiently skeptical at any similar announcement.
Batteries do improve year-over-year and a lot of effort is going towards the technology, but its 5-10% per year gains, not all of sudden every metric has doubled.

 

[Taycan4S_UK]

it's far from "Awesome" if my current car can't benefit.

 

[gnr3312]

The assumption is based on the fact that home charging is typically much cheaper.

In our area, the cost for home charging is 25%-35% of the cost of high speed charging. YMMV of course.

$0.14 here in Texas, cost me $8 last time to charge 61 kWh.

 

[snstevens]

$0.14 here in Texas, cost me $8 last time to charge 61 kWh.

$0.15-$0.17 here in the PNW near Seattle.

 

[69Mach390]

Thanks for sharing this!

Not sure why you're getting pushback on the thread, but don't change anything. The world of technology is always advancing, and I for one enjoy the ride.

Because it’s BS.

And it’s probably the 30th time a company has claimed the same exact BS in the last decade.

Likely just hype to try to drum up investors and lose them money.

I saw their video this week claiming all these things.

The most obvious BS is the claimed 100,000 charge cycles.

Even in their supposed upcoming motorcycle with 200 miles of range, that’s 20 MILLION miles.

Know how long it would take to charge then deplete the battery if you did it 24 hours/day to test 100,000 cycles?

40 years.

Unless they developed and started testing this in 1985, they’re full of crap.

 

[snstevens]

Personally, I loved this video. I particularly like the third-party comments from companies using the Donut motor and battery. While I suppose you could gen-up a false video of anything these days, it seem unlikely to me that all of these partners would go along. Of course, healthy skepticism is always a good approach, but I'm intrigued.

For those interested in the science of Accelerated Testing to substantiate a claim for 100,000 charging cycles when you can't do 40 years of testing, here is how its done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

You substantiate a “100,000 cycle” claim with a combination of accelerated testing, physics‑based or empirical aging models, and conservative extrapolation plus safety factors—not by literally running 40 years of real‑time cycling.
Core approach

• Run accelerated life tests at elevated stress: higher temperature, higher C‑rates, tighter voltage windows, and defined rest periods, to reach end‑of‑life (e.g., 80% capacity) in weeks or months instead of decades.
• Fit degradation models (Arrhenius‑type temperature dependence, algebraic/empirical capacity‑fade vs. time/cycles) to those data across several stress conditions.
• Use the validated model to extrapolate to normal operating conditions and convert the predicted calendar time into an equivalent cycle count, then derate with a safety margin to publish a conservative “up to 100,000 cycles” spec.

Key ingredients you need

• A designed experiment varying major stressors (temperature, C‑rate, voltage window, rest time) with enough cells per condition to capture variability.
• A clear failure definition (e.g., 80% capacity, defined impedance increase) so lifetime is well‑posed and comparable across conditions.
• A validated life model (often Arrhenius for temperature plus an empirical term for cycling) whose short‑term predictions match a subset of longer‑term tests, so extrapolation to many years is defensible.

How you make it credible

• Publish or at least internally document: test protocols, number of samples, variance, model form, fitting method, and confidence intervals on projected life.
• Include application assumptions in the claim (temperature range, depth of discharge, charge rate, etc.), since real‑world deviations can reduce or increase practical cycle life versus the 100,000‑cycle figure.
• Periodically cross‑check predictions with longer‑duration “reference” tests at near‑normal conditions to catch model drift or unmodeled aging modes.

 

[69Mach390]

Personally, I loved this video. I particularly like the third-party comments from companies using the Donut motor and battery. While I suppose you could gen-up a false video of anything these days, it seem unlikely to me that all of these partners would go along. Of course, healthy skepticism is always a good approach, but I'm intrigued.

For those interested in the science of Accelerated Testing to substantiate a claim for 100,000 charging cycles when you can't do 40 years of testing, here is how its done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

You substantiate a “100,000 cycle” claim with a combination of accelerated testing, physics‑based or empirical aging models, and conservative extrapolation plus safety factors—not by literally running 40 years of real‑time cycling.
Core approach

• Run accelerated life tests at elevated stress: higher temperature, higher C‑rates, tighter voltage windows, and defined rest periods, to reach end‑of‑life (e.g., 80% capacity) in weeks or months instead of decades.
• Fit degradation models (Arrhenius‑type temperature dependence, algebraic/empirical capacity‑fade vs. time/cycles) to those data across several stress conditions.
• Use the validated model to extrapolate to normal operating conditions and convert the predicted calendar time into an equivalent cycle count, then derate with a safety margin to publish a conservative “up to 100,000 cycles” spec.

Key ingredients you need

• A designed experiment varying major stressors (temperature, C‑rate, voltage window, rest time) with enough cells per condition to capture variability.
• A clear failure definition (e.g., 80% capacity, defined impedance increase) so lifetime is well‑posed and comparable across conditions.
• A validated life model (often Arrhenius for temperature plus an empirical term for cycling) whose short‑term predictions match a subset of longer‑term tests, so extrapolation to many years is defensible.

How you make it credible

• Publish or at least internally document: test protocols, number of samples, variance, model form, fitting method, and confidence intervals on projected life.
• Include application assumptions in the claim (temperature range, depth of discharge, charge rate, etc.), since real‑world deviations can reduce or increase practical cycle life versus the 100,000‑cycle figure.
• Periodically cross‑check predictions with longer‑duration “reference” tests at near‑normal conditions to catch model drift or unmodeled aging modes.

AI slop to back up exaggerated and bogus claims of a tech company? Talk about doubling down…..

The donut motor does exist. The solid state battery? Likely nonsense.

The motor has its own issues like a significant increase in unsprung weight and risk of damage (bouncing so much and potholes etc).

Kinda cool for a motorcycle, impractical for a car.

 

[ze_shark]

Alright, but accelerated aging at high temp is a thing in validation protocols. This said, it means in no way that this thing is real, i agree.

Sponsored