Agree, always want that lift off braking in some capacity. Ideal torque version I've implemented includes a few torque parts.
1. Lift Pedal Regen (~0.06-0.12G)
2. Brake Pedal Regen (to a total regen of 0.10-0.20G)
3. Creep Torque (speed control to ~3-5mph)
4. Normal accelerator torque

Personally I find it much more controllable / comfortable to use creep torque to do low speed maneuvers vs pedal inputs. Im also in the camp of really disliking the one pedal driving experience as a whole though. To me it feels really unnatural / like a loss in controllability.

Second life programs like this are awesome, the controls / physical safety problem of managing packs with uncertain past lives and varying physical states is a big lift in this project though. Curious what their approach is.

That said its possible Nussey used E100 numbers (really only run in Brazil as far as pump gas goes) and then used the energy equivalence (~70%) which gives exactly 385 if you start at 551. Though the actual mpg equivalent is more like 60% ish

Making a bit of an assumption because they're not my numbers, but these seem to be E85 (85% eth) flex fuel equivalents. Hence the 551-386 conversion for reg fuel (though I'd contest both of those numbers and say the actual yield is probably more like 475 gal / 365-403 gal reg equiv.)

Ran out of space to clarify, that 386 gal number is fuel grade corrected, ethanol volume in the article is 551 gal.

Also wanted to use the more favorable F150 config. If you use the 5.0s 19mpg then the EV is more like a 54x improvement!

medium.com/@billnussey/...

Think he's calling out Bill Nussey stat from his book / FreeingEnergy article. Best part, McKibben is actually underselling the difference! Rerunning those #'s for F150 gives...
- 1 acre = 386 gal fuel eq. / yr
- 1 acre = ~199MWh/yr
F150 = 25mpg / 496Wh/mi
Gas = 9.6k mi
EV = 400k mi (41x not 28x!!)

Gotta be Mayor Pete
@petebuttigieg.bsky.social

And if it really just is LMFP... still do it for sure but this isn't exactly a Ford & GM breakthrough if they're ~ 3-4 years behind

Very curious to see more specifics on what this "LMR" chemistry is and if/how it differs from the new LMFP batteries that CATL/Gotion/SVolt/etc are shipping today. The specs they're calling out sound pretty familiar to those new cells.

This x1,000,000. It's gotten to the point where basically every US made vehicle just elicits zero emotion whatsoever.

Only counter; IMO part of why the Maverick has done so well is it's one of the first Fords in a long time to actually be fun & joyful.

Imagine it's a bit of all the above. Locally built, very high demand, all of the cheapest/best battery mfg is local, highly commoditized hybrid powertrains, and a bit of gov incentives /subsidization on top.

Makar in beautiful fashion. Let's close it out!

Haven't been following this super closely but seems like there's been a LOT of red herring causes thrown out on this.

In before Tesla pushes an RCM software update to make their airbags deploy less often

That's just not fair

There are some... interesting choices for sure. To be honest crank windows probably costs more than simple power windows nowadays, no practical reason for that imo

At 563kW? So 1,000V pack and like 963V at 70% SOC to max out liquid cooled GB/Ts 600A limit. That's a bold architecture

That's incredible. Guessing they're assuming using ChaoJi to hit this?