Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

200kWh battery, when in Model S/X?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
If Tesla can improve supercharging to 5-10 minutes, would prefer faster supercharging than increased battery capacity. Stopping for 5-10 minutes every 4 hours for supercharging seems reasonable.

And for those who really want to have the longest range - Tesla will have the Roadster, with over 600 miles of range at highway speeds.
 
We also should consider that the rest of the vehicle is becoming more energy efficient, so requiring less kWh to accomplish the same work. JB made several comments in the last that he expected non-bettery advances to be more rapid than battery advances. I fully expect the next edition of S&X to have much more range improvement than the kWh ratings alone would imply.

For some reason most of us seem preoccupied with kWh and only that.

Remember back in the ICE age when the Lotus Elite14 out-performed many other much more powerful cars because of light weight? Now we can do that magic without making an unreliable, but brilliant, kit car. HP and/or kWh are not the ultimate single answers.
 
The problem is any gains outside of the battery pack are going to be small. There is only so much you can do with aerodynamics and still have a full sized sedan and SUV, and unless they go to carbon fiber, which is expensive, there isn't much more they can do with weight. Motor/inverter efficiency can also only improve a few percent at best. It really is all about the battery pack. Energy density and specific energy will need to double from where we are now to get to 200kWh in the S/X platform. Without a major breakthrough that might take 8-10 years.
 
I wish it were possible to like the post while disagreeing about some points.

To assume that it is all about the battery belies major progress being made in several areas that use lots of energy. It is not only aerodynamics.
-The inverters alone consume substantial energy, which rises with heavier use;
-The BMS and motor cooling are also major users, with substantial improvements possible in both, which are more important for Semi and Roadster;
-cabin heating and cooling are significant energy users, as we all know, in both hot and cold weather. Improvements in both systems are quite possible;
-Motor design is evolving rapidly, not only PM, but all manner of motor design;
-energy transmission is a source of less that is being redesigned to eliminate lots of losses;
-rolling resistance is partly tires but also the wheel well design and undercarriage. Much more can be done;
-aerodynamics continues to improve, and will still improve more. Even paints play a part.

For sure these eight areas still account for low double digits of energy use in moderate conditions, but...they can account for a huge proportion when conditions depart from typical.

Suggesting that there are not major improvements in real world range from these areas, if not others, is a problem. That implies all those have been optimized when everything we already know show they are all being improved.

We are still in the early part of the third generation of BEV design. There has been only a decade of serious effort, mostly by Tesla thus far. Much more progress will come.

Of course more power is always better, assuming we can afford it, and that having it does not equal lower efficiency. To that end we already are observing a number of improvements:
-greater resistance to temperature change, some through BMS and some through cell design and chemistry. Nobody seems able to predict which innovations will reach cost effective mass adoption when. That they will happen is not in doubt. As that happens raw kWh will be less of a factor that practical resilience in daily use.
 
Can you quantify the large gains you claim are available? Better motor/inverter cooling is not an efficiency improvement, it's just better removal of waste heat. Unusual circumstances are just that, unusual, and do not affect long range driving efficiency, when range actually matters. If the motor/inverter combo is already averaging 90% efficiency, and you acknowledge you'll never get close to 100% efficiency, you're talking about low single digit improvements. Even a 5% improvement on a 300 mile pack only provides another 15 miles, not significant. Motor design is not radically changing, it's minor tweaks to long existing products, with limited room for improvement.
Likewise cabin heating and cooling improvements are going to be minimal, (especially in extreme conditions where heat pumps are less effective). Plus if you improve the efficiency of the motor/inverter that means there is less waste heat to use for heating the pack and/or cabin, so that energy will have to come from somewhere else. The only real way to improve the BMS energy use is with a cell chemistry change that doesn't require heating or cooling.
I think you're vastly over stating possible gains without resorting to superaerodynamic weirdmobiles riding on hard skinny tires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSP
If Tesla can improve supercharging to 5-10 minutes, would prefer faster supercharging than increased battery capacity. Stopping for 5-10 minutes every 4 hours for supercharging seems reasonable.

And for those who really want to have the longest range - Tesla will have the Roadster, with over 600 miles of range at highway speeds.


+1

At least for our use case, cutting Supercharging times by 75%, or even 50%, would be a much bigger win than a 130 kWh battery pack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jelloslug
I don’t understand the need for such a large battery. I’ve been driving a Tesla for 3 yrs now and am approaching 100k in total miles driven. While I can understand the theory behind wanting a larger battery for the 5-10% of the time you are on long road trips, the need is not really there and is inefficient for the 90% of the time you are just using the car for daily driving.

Saving 10-15 minutes for a single stop at a Supercharge Station is hardly worth the reduced efficiency during non road trip time driving nor is it worth the extra cost to double a 100kWh battery.

I’ve driven to FL from CT and done numerous other long distance road trips. Yes - a 200 kWh would reduce the number of stops needed for the car but I needed to stop every 3-4 hours for a 20 minute break, for stretching, food and bathroom.

Just my two cents. I’m sure others would benefit but I don’t think the majority of owners would need such a battery.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: XHabjab and arcus
I don’t understand the need for such a large battery. I’ve been driving a Tesla for 3 yrs now and am approaching 100k in total miles driven. While I can understand the theory behind wanting a larger battery for the 5-10% of the time you are on long road trips, the need is not really there and is inefficient for the 90% of the time you are just using the car for daily driving.

Saving 10-15 minutes for a single stop at a Supercharge Station is hardly worth the reduced efficiency during non road trip time driving nor is it worth the extra cost to double a 100kWh battery.

I’ve driven to FL from CT and done numerous other long distance road trips. Yes - a 200 kWh would reduce the number of stops needed for the car but I needed to stop every 3-4 hours for a 20 minute break, for stretching, food and bathroom.

Just my two cents. I’m sure others would benefit but I don’t think the majority of owners would need such a battery.

Great for you. Those of us in a cold climate need a larger battery. Very cold snowy weather can drop effective range 50%. And beyond that, the long and frequent charging stops can really hamper travelling professionals. I really long for a 130-150 kwh battery.
 
I don’t understand the need for such a large battery. I’ve been driving a Tesla for 3 yrs now and am approaching 100k in total miles driven. While I can understand the theory behind wanting a larger battery for the 5-10% of the time you are on long road trips, the need is not really there and is inefficient for the 90% of the time you are just using the car for daily driving.

Saving 10-15 minutes for a single stop at a Supercharge Station is hardly worth the reduced efficiency during non road trip time driving nor is it worth the extra cost to double a 100kWh battery.

I’ve driven to FL from CT and done numerous other long distance road trips. Yes - a 200 kWh would reduce the number of stops needed for the car but I needed to stop every 3-4 hours for a 20 minute break, for stretching, food and bathroom.

Just my two cents. I’m sure others would benefit but I don’t think the majority of owners would need such a battery.



My closest level 3 (CHAdeMO) is 600 miles away, nearest Supercharger... 1070miles away :) I would love 130kw/h pack. But you are correct, 99% of owners are much much closer to level 3s .
 
  • Like
Reactions: wcfinvader
I don’t understand the need for such a large battery. I’ve been driving a Tesla for 3 yrs now and am approaching 100k in total miles driven. While I can understand the theory behind wanting a larger battery for the 5-10% of the time you are on long road trips, the need is not really there and is inefficient for the 90% of the time you are just using the car for daily driving.

Saving 10-15 minutes for a single stop at a Supercharge Station is hardly worth the reduced efficiency during non road trip time driving nor is it worth the extra cost to double a 100kWh battery.

I’ve driven to FL from CT and done numerous other long distance road trips. Yes - a 200 kWh would reduce the number of stops needed for the car but I needed to stop every 3-4 hours for a 20 minute break, for stretching, food and bathroom.

Just my two cents. I’m sure others would benefit but I don’t think the majority of owners would need such a battery.

80 MPH with a full load into headwinds with 30 degree temperatures and a bike rack. 50% is of range is wildly optimistic. i would buy a 200 kWh battery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wcfinvader
Just my two cents. I’m sure others would benefit but I don’t think the majority of owners would need such a battery.

Probably it's true that the majority of owners won't need such a large battery. Everyone's use case is different though.

Speaking for myself, I'm very much looking forward to my 100D Model X, as opposed to my wife's P90D Model X. No matter how hard I try to make it fit, I can't get the Model X to go 300km in the winter, and that means the 3 hour drive every few weekends needs to be 3.5h each way to allow for a charge stop. In my vehicle, it means saving that extra hour of driving time every month. In her vehicle, it means that driving our drive in the winter is noticably more annoying than in the summer, when the car can make it.

Road trips are one thing, but if your week-in, week-out driving involves a long drive every week like ours does in the summer, it's really nice not to have to pay the time hit of a charge stop.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP
Well who knew I’d fine all the Canadians in this thread. :)

Definitely understand the impact of cold and snow. My worst wh/mi was ~475 with temps at -10f snowing and windy. Not a normal day down here, even for VT. And yes we have better Supercharger infrastructure down here for the time being. Hopefully the build out continues and the trans-Canadian highway is complete with Superchargers next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSP