Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PWM]

I always assumed the 13.4 packs were 82s2p and the 21.5 packs were 82s3p.

(4) 20S2P....based on deductive reasoning not based on any industry specific knowledge...

[MVetter]

I don't think they made the jump from the 13.4 to the 21.5 based solely on cell density improvements. 20Ah cells to 32Ah cells is a hell of a jump. Plus, if they had the same number of cells, there'd be no reason to dump the smaller internal-case design housed inside the split-channel air cooled shell. It seems much more likely that they went from 2p to 3p and got a slight Ah bump in the process.

[Skidz]

Well, since Giampieri Testoni is quoted in the article, and he's sort-of the CTO of Energica, I tend to go with the 81s2p

Unless we get more than the cell layout, it's still a guess to what cells are being used. To get back to the stressfull charging, I think they operate the cells within producer margins, so if the 13.4 is charged at 2C then that's OK I guess. Looking at a study of li-ion cells and their degradation based on charging and discharging here https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2022.905710/full it looks like a charge of 2C is very close to the degradation numbers of 1C charging. But again, this is probably not the cell we have in our bikes.

[MVetter]

Well, since Giampieri Testoni is quoted in the article, and he's sort-of the CTO of Energica, I tend to go with the 81s2p

The thing is the part that mentions the 81s2p isn't quoting him; it's just mentioning it offhandedly. And then it says the "pack is rated to 300 V". But we all know the packs go to 330+. So... some discrepancies here.