[HN Gopher] Rimac unveils SineStack, battery energy storage system
___________________________________________________________________
Rimac unveils SineStack, battery energy storage system
Author : taubek
Score : 94 points
Date : 2023-09-29 12:52 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.energy-storage.news)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.energy-storage.news)
| hetspookjee wrote:
| Im quite bothered by the "standard" one foot roll-out that car
| manufacturers advertise these day with their 0-60 times. It's not
| 0-60 with it when there's one foot roll out so it just feels
| unrealistic. And besides the difference in time measured between
| actual 0-60 and the one with the one foot roll-out is huge.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Thanks! I was not aware of it. It appears pervasive and
| ubiquitous, but completely slipped my radar. I'm barely a
| "hobbyist occasional track day racer" but it at least partially
| explains why I or anybody I know cannot come close to
| replicating the numbers I see (besides "they have much better
| drivers", of course:). First foot is _HUGE_ , especially
| amongst different drivetrains (FWD/RWS/AWD, manual/DCT/AT/CVT),
| which handle the launch completely differently!
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Without a rollout most 0-60 times would be useless. You make
| things like the surface the car is on matter way more than
| they should.
|
| What's more of a problem is the opposite: if you increase the
| rollout so that the car's ECUs think it's being driven
| normally, and _then_ mash the pedal to see how fast it goes,
| you get dramatically slower numbers:
| https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-
| maintenance/...
|
| That reflects how fast a car will feel in daily driving as
| opposed to a drag strip
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Thx; hilariously, I own both the Honda Odyssey _and_ the
| Subaru WRX example cars from the article :)
|
| >>"It's that 5-to-60--the first number you should look at,
| and when the light turns green, the only one that matters.
| "
|
| I think 0-60 from stop, 0-60 with foot rollout, and rolling
| start 5-60 are all valid and useful metrics, when
| explicitly indicated as such. While I've never participated
| in a public-street red-light drag race, I don't think 5-60
| is a valid metric for it, precisely for the reasons it
| mentions - the 5-60 eliminates a lot of drivetrain and
| surface components which would impact the launch; and more
| directly compares just the pure power. My Subaru WRX has
| less power, but has AWD and grippy tires, will leave my
| 1-wheel-drive heavily-traction-controlled, all-season tires
| Minivan in the dust at launch (but things may become more
| equal from the rolling start or even on highway overtakes).
| BoorishBears wrote:
| > more directly compares just the pure power
|
| That's closer to what most people racing in a straight
| line want to measure as opposed to who can hook faster:
| hence drag racing using a two stage starting position
|
| No metric will every reflect racing from a dig on a
| public street between the random surfaces, heat soak (it
| takes one or two pulls for most cars to start pulling
| timing stock), tires, etc... and I don't think any
| publication is really interested in satisfying that
| comparison.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I don't disagree. To your and authors point I have no
| interest in wrecking my daily driver transmission. I was
| just amused at the author spending 3 paragraphs
| explaining confounding factors that affect from-0
| performance, and then offered the canonical from-0
| situation, a red light, as suitable for 5-60 metric :-).
|
| Anyhoo. Good read nonetheless :-)
| hengheng wrote:
| So am I reading this right, they are getting to 92% efficiency by
| knowing that their battery cells are insanely good low-pass
| filters that they can throw anything at?
| svnt wrote:
| No, they got there by designing insanely efficient integrated
| AC battery chargers and inverters at incredible power levels,
| which it seems no one has done before.
|
| Otherwise all one would have to do is get the batteries.
| pornel wrote:
| In the world of EVs, top auto makers are forced to become experts
| in batteries and battery management systems.
|
| The record-breaking Rimac Nevera can pull up to 1.4 _megawatt_
| from its battery (https://www.rimac-newsroom.com/press-
| releases/rimac-automobi...)
| outworlder wrote:
| Even my lowly leaf quickcharges at 50KW. The traction is
| 80KW(plus losses). That is already a lot of power.
|
| Compared to a house, that's a lot. Not even a modern house on a
| 200A breaker supplying 220V can go that high - could get around
| 44KW but not continuously. Many homes are still on 100A
| service.
|
| 1.4MW on a car is mind-blowing and in the realm of sci-fi not
| too long ago.
|
| This tech will eventually become mundane and available
| everywhere (and hopefully some of that will leak into other
| areas). But for now it's still spectacular.
| calin2k wrote:
| Rimac also did the battery system for "Koenigsegg Regera - the
| world's most powerful production car" https://www.rimac-
| automobili.com/media/press-releases/rimac-...
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| In what sense is a Koenigsegg a production car?
| doikor wrote:
| Usually this means that it is a street legal car that is/was
| sold to the public.
|
| In modern times this also means that it went through crash
| testing so modern production cars have much larger production
| runs to offset the costs of that or are very very expensive
| (millions). For example Rimac said they are planning to make
| 150 Neveras but they also had to make multiple rolling bodies
| and a couple fully built cars (at minimum one for EU and one
| for US if you want to enter both markets) for crash testing
| on top of any development cars.
|
| But strictly speaking there is no one definition but instead
| each field/industry defines it in its own way. Motorsports
| has its own (multiple actually depending on the
| series/governing body), car manufacturers have their own,
| record keeping organisations have their own (guinness book of
| records), etc
| pseudosavant wrote:
| In the sense that it is "homologated" and has had to pass all
| of the same tests as a car that will sell in the hundreds of
| thousands, or even millions of units.
|
| https://www.tuvsud.com/en/industries/mobility-and-
| automotive...
| fgsfds028374 wrote:
| It can be purchased by a consumer and driven on public roads.
|
| In what sense is it not one?
| Toutouxc wrote:
| In the sense that there were 85 of them built on the same
| production line and sold to actual customers.
| jsight wrote:
| I feel like the minimum standard is too low, tbh. Building
| dozens of them and selling them seems like enough.
|
| There needs to be another standard that is something like...
| built at least 10k of them. Because less than that is still
| likely hand-built and it doesn't really mean much that it was
| "production".
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| "Mass Market Production"?
| jWhick wrote:
| [flagged]
| djoletina wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| jeffbee wrote:
| It's a pretty big claim, 280kWh/m^2. That's 4x the density of
| proposed iron-air batteries at utility scale (100h storage x
| 3MW/acre = 74kWh/m^2). However, I don't know if areal energy
| density is relevant to the market.
| abecedarius wrote:
| How does per-square-meter work out to be the relevant unit for
| energy density? Where land is expensive wouldn't you just stack
| things up?
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Those batteries would probably be installed in buildings, and
| you probably wouldn't stack them, so the relevant dimension
| is area required per kWh.
| leetharris wrote:
| It is relevant, some areas will need higher density and others
| will need less density.
|
| For bulk grid storage, batteries will likely be buried and not
| very dense.
|
| For local spot backup for buildings and urban areas you
| absolutely want the highest power per cubic unit.
| gorbypark wrote:
| It seems to be in line with regular LiFePO4 batteries.
| Wikipedia is claiming 325 Wh/L^2 for Lithium iron phosphate
| batteries. This seems to be more about the inverter technology,
| which I guess is what is different here compared to a bunch of
| LiFePO4 cells in a box. There's a quote in the article about
| the inverters allowing them to get the "best footprint in the
| industry", so I'm guessing they managed to get the inverters
| down to about 45 litres in volume (or less).
| outside1234 wrote:
| This battery is for a car, not grid storage (or at least this
| is my read)
| gorbypark wrote:
| I don't think this is for a car. There's a line in the
| article, "Details have been eagerly anticipated since the
| company announced it was going into stationary energy storage
| back in May".
| tooltalk wrote:
| >> the battery energy storage system (BESS) division of EV
| supercar company Rima <<
|
| ESS == stationary Battery Energy Storage System. So this
| would be comparable to Tesal's Megapack business unit. I mean
| 790kW in an EV? That's must be for a rocket.
| jansan wrote:
| 790kWh for a car? Now that should be sufficient range for
| everyone. But seriously, this isn't for cars.
| Retric wrote:
| Looks like it's designed to charge EV's at 400kW. Perfect for
| racetracks which may need insane charging rates but aren't
| full time charging stations. 5 super cars at 400kW each would
| normally take an insane grid connection, but you can trickle
| charge these with solar and or vastly smaller grid
| connections.
| svnt wrote:
| It isn't just race cars, this approximate power level is
| widely available in consumer cars.
|
| Hyundai Ioniq-5 and other vehicles can utilize the
| increasingly common 350 kW connectors -- including the
| Lucid Air, the Porsche Taycan, the Audi E-Tron GT, and the
| GMC Hummer EV. [0]
|
| This enables them to deploy the fastest DC charging in
| places where the grid cannot support it. It's a big deal.
|
| [0] https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135771_hyundai-
| ioniq-5...
| Retric wrote:
| You can use the battery on top of the existing grid
| connection. So if you can charge the 790kWh battery pack
| on a 50kW grid connection you can charge at 400kW + 50kW
| = 450kW which seems overkill if you only need 350kW.
|
| It might also be designed to support multiple EV's as
| most cars can only stay at 350kW for a relatively short
| period.
| jansan wrote:
| Not sure if enough people have Rimac on the radar. They are
| pushing hard. For example the new Bugatti cars will be made by a
| joint venture of Rimac and Bugatti (=Volkswagen), and they will
| be hybrid or all electric. They have their own hyper car (the
| Nevera which accelerates from 0 to 60mph in 1.74 seconds), do
| development work for other car companies (like Porsche) and now
| present this BESS. This is exciting stuff coming from Croatia.
| locallost wrote:
| For now Rimac has been most successful in finding investors.
| His game is similar to Musk in that he's very capable of
| swimming in the big money ocean, but the results are slim. This
| year they received 180 million from the state to develop
| autonomous taxis. It's not just state money, he's received
| private investment too, but it's all a bit fishy. Big claims
| and announcements, but a very slow rollout.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| They have been building and selling automotive electric
| systems for posche/audi/ferrari and others for years, and
| have released their own super car. What are you talking
| about?
| jandrese wrote:
| They've built a handful of ultra-expensive boutique
| automobiles. This is not nothing, but it's operating on a
| different scale than a company like Porsche. They have
| achieved world beating performance...on vehicles that are
| basically lab specimens that will hardly ever be driven.
| baxuz wrote:
| Yeah, the guy said back in 2021 that they'll make lvl 5 (LOL)
| autonomous robo taxis by the end of 2023.
|
| And the government bought the techbro investor-speak and gave
| an already shady company 180m EUR of taxpayers money.
|
| https://www-telegram-hr.translate.goog/vijesti/telegram-
| dozn...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| They're the Croatian equivalent of German "hidden champions" -
| insanely good technology, possibly world-leading positions in
| their niche, but very unknown outside of said niche.
|
| Rimac cars aren't something your average neighbor will ever
| drive, probably not even your average non-F500 CEO. But,
| similar to F1 racing cars and early-days Tesla, they push right
| at the edges of technology, which will eventually trickle down
| to ordinary cars.
| nixass wrote:
| In Croatia they are also known of being shady company with
| shady government deals, shady beginnings (money laundering)
| and burning money on projects that aren't feasible at all.
| But they look good on paper and government lovea to use them
| as a PR and "successful Croatian project"
| lnsru wrote:
| Thanks. The amazing campus was a bit too beautiful to be
| true for a growing car company.
| bdamm wrote:
| This is fascinating to me.
|
| What fraction of companies in Croatia are "money
| laundering"? Because if the fact is that most companies
| start out this way, and we end up with Rimac due to a
| magical grouping of people, then their success is hardly
| ignoble at all; it should be celebrated, supported, and
| leveraged into a moderate size organization. In that sense,
| they were successful despite their beginnings, which would
| normally be structured to not foster innovation. So they
| should be celebrated by Croatia and by Croatians since it
| is an example of what companies can be, and not so much an
| example of how companies can start since we already know
| the probability of success with that method is very low.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| I'm not sure framing it as a joint venture is the right way to
| frame it, though they use the term to describe it that way. VAG
| put Mate in charge of a new division - Bugatti Rimac
| Automobiles. They are the parent company of Bugatti and Rimac.
| In it, Rimac holds 55%, VAG owns 45%. However, VAG also owns
| 22% of Rimac below, so VAG has technical controlling interest
| here. By any regards though, they basically did an Apple/NEXT
| type of takeover, where VAG bought much of Rimac but Mate took
| over Bugatti. Obviously, I think this all makes your point
| stronger.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| So what happens if you have 22% of a company that owns 55% of
| a joint venture? I don't _think _ you actually get to take a
| decision on 22% of the 55%, do you? The 22% company's board
| would probably get together, decide on a single vote for the
| 55% percentage and your ownership would not be useful in
| decision making?
| kungito wrote:
| They didn't buy Rimac, they bought a stake. It used to be
| 24%, not sure if it's bigger now
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36920070/bugatti-rimac-
| po...
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| I updated the comment, It's really weird. They bought a
| part but also effectively gave Rimac the Bugatti company.
| One can argue that they basically leveraged Bugatti to
| acquire some control of Rimac and board seats without
| spending actual money.
|
| They have a glorious flowchart on their site. https://web-
| cdn.rimac-automobili.com/wp-content/uploads/2021...
| rasz wrote:
| That chart reminds me of Korean chaebols ownership
| structure right before the big crash of 1997
|
| Asianometry How the Rich Ate South Korea
| https://youtu.be/hWCcvOE84Ao?t=489
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| That IS a glorious chart, thank you; am I the only one
| who would REALLY want some arrows there? :)
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Porsche has a 45% stake in Bugatti Rimac and a 22% stake in
| Rimac Group, which has a 55% stake in Bugatti Rimac. So
| it's complicated.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Not that complicated. Porsche was once described as "the
| hedge fund that happens to also build cars".
|
| Porsche did this stake here and there thing precisely to
| gain > 50% of Rimac voting rights.
|
| It's simple really: Porsche controls Rimac.
|
| Then there's the whole "VW took control of Porsche after
| the short squeeze made by Porsche to try to acquire VW
| failed" (it failed due to the sudden crash during the
| 2008 banking crisis IIRC). And now Porsche is apparently
| spinning out of VW and shall be independent again.
| cinntaile wrote:
| They only own 22% in Rimac, that's not a controlling
| stake. Therefore they don't have > 50% of Rimac (Rimac
| Bugatti I assume) voting rights.
| [deleted]
| WanderPanda wrote:
| I like my conglomerates like my datastructures, directed
| and acyclic :p
| jansan wrote:
| I missed where VAG bought Rimac. Are you sure this is true?
| Here is an org chart for Rimac Bugatti, and AFAIK the
| ownership structure has not changed since:
|
| https://www.rimac-automobili.com/media/press-
| releases/rimac-...
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| It's not Volkswagen AG who took control of Bugatti and
| Rimac, it's Porsche.
|
| And Porsche is spinning out of VW and becoming independent
| again:
|
| https://capital.com/porsche-volkswagen-vw-demerger-spin-off
|
| https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36933399/did-
| porsc...
|
| (answer is "yes" btw)
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| Ah but Porsche is not Porsche but instead Porsche AG and
| Porsche SE.
|
| It is pure insanity in need of many flow charts.
| jacooper wrote:
| Huh, why would VAG just give up on Porsche like that?
| Especially that Porsche holdings owns a big part of VAG
| itself.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Because the people controlling VW are the same that arw
| behind Porsche, namely the families Porsche and Piech.
| wand3r wrote:
| > Not sure if enough people have Rimac on the radar.
|
| I've been aware of them for a while but they are largely
| irrelevant for most people. The technology is interesting and
| styling is cool but they were something like 1.9m euro.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-29 23:01 UTC)