205 kWh Battery Model S Soon?

[mrbulk]

So hints Bjorn anyway:

 

[Chaserr]

"Soon" doesn't mean much to Tesla but they should be planning to release the 200kwh pack they already showed us.

 

[SilverGS]

200 kwh battery pack??? I sure hope the weight is less or the same weight as the current 100 kwh battery pack. Otherwise whats the point? How often do you need 800 miles of range non stop?

 

[BigNick]

Or they just want to throw a big monkeywrench into software such as ScanMyTesla or TM-Spy.

 

[ICUDoc]

Wow, 200kWh??! I can't believe they would put that in a Model S. It already weighs too much- if they have THAT sort to tech, just put in 120kWh- drop the weight 300kg and suddenly the car becomes not only unassailable in range, but much more fun to drive!

 

[ucmndd]

Wow, 200kWh??! I can't believe they would put that in a Model S.

That makes you a smart cookie.

 

[tonglaji]

It only means that Tesla is now able to represent a pack size from 0-204.8 in their software. It does not mean the next new pack will be 200. Given the previous representation was limited to 102.4, it is probably a good indicator they are preparing a pack larger than 102. It could be 110, 120, but very unlikely 200 -- the technology isn't there yet.

 

[Ostrichsak]

It only means that Tesla is now able to represent a pack size from 0-204.8 in their software. It does not mean the next new pack will be 200. Given the previous representation was limited to 102.4, it is probably a good indicator they are preparing a pack larger than 102. It could be 110, 120, but very unlikely 200 -- the technology isn't there yet.

I fully suspect something in the ~120kWh range will be the new Model S/X battery pack size. I think this can be largely achieved once they do away with the modular pack within the pack that was a holdover from the original Roadster but never used for purposes intended. There may be another bump from a new chemistry as well & rumors are it could be substantial.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Maybe prepping for Plaid!

 

[ucmndd]

It only means that Tesla is now able to represent a pack size from 0-204.8 in their software. It does not mean the next new pack will be 200. Given the previous representation was limited to 102.4, it is probably a good indicator they are preparing a pack larger than 102. It could be 110, 120, but very unlikely 200 -- the technology isn't there yet.

Exactly. The fact that my 64 bit intel CPU can address ~18 exabytes of memory doesn’t mean Dell’s releasing a laptop with 18 exabytes of RAM “soon”.

 

[Chaserr]

Otherwise whats the point? How often do you need 800 miles of range non stop?

It was 600 miles on the Roadster they showed, but it needed 200kwh so it could do 0-60 under 2 seconds. I don't know if it will be 200 kwh but Cybertruck's 500 miles of range will need that bit to address its battery.

 

[Battpower]

I don't know if it will be 200 kwh but Cybertruck's 500 miles of range will need that bit to address its battery.

Yes. Makes more sense than stressing the MS design even further.

Not sure I can really see a desirable development to push for even higher range if it demands more weight with associated suspension and drive train challenges. Makes no sense either if at the same time charging rates have to be limited. Having many, diverse and short charging sessions spread around the network should be better than encouraging drivers to charge for ages at the (high traffic) end points of long distance trips.

However, it's not uncommon for manufacturers to carry inially valid design focus on for too long which can give other approaches the chance to earn support.

Capacitors (or other efficient, long life, fast charge / discharge etc) need to find their place in designs to maximise performance without just plugging away at the idea of bigger and bigger batteries.

 

[DBV1]

200 kwh battery pack??? I sure hope the weight is less or the same weight as the current 100 kwh battery pack. Otherwise whats the point? How often do you need 800 miles of range non stop?

I would most definitely take 800 miles of range non stop. No brainer, as I travel a lot and definitely need more range than there is now. Really dislike stopping and would make up for poor range in the cold weather, etc...

 

[Battpower]

would make up for poor range in the cold weather,

A valid point. And recognises that efficiency of the systems that give rise to the summer vs winter changes are an area to keep working on.

Efficiency should be the main target though. You'd never think of saving the planet by fitting ICE vehicles with bigger fuel tanks. But increasing range through greater efficiency is just as valid for ICE vehicles as it is for EV's.

 

[Sluggabed]

I would most definitely take 800 miles of range non stop. No brainer, as I travel a lot and definitely need more range than there is now. Really dislike stopping and would make up for poor range in the cold weather, etc...

We definitely need that sort of range in Australia. With the roughly the same land mass as the 48 states we have a total of 16 Superchargers and a government that is against EVs, it's an up hill battle (latest angle from them is a kilometre tax for EVs only)
Whether we get sort of range from this next generation is another story.

 

[Battpower]

Or more superchargers so you don't need to tie huge onboard storage resources to each vehicle?

 

[InternetDude]

Gosh it would probably be more environmentally friendly to drive an efficient hybrid ICE vehicle than to produce and tote around 205 kW of battery for a single vehicle.

 

[Battpower]

Gosh it would probably be more environmentally friendly to drive an efficient hybrid ICE vehicle than to produce and tote around 205 kW of battery for a single vehicle.

And from the big picture, spreading the battery raw materials over a greater number of smaller batteries would seem to make more sense from several perspectives.

 

[aerodyne]

Gosh it would probably be more environmentally friendly to drive an efficient hybrid ICE vehicle than to produce and tote around 205 kW of battery for a single vehicle.

You would think, but the EPA gas gallon equivalent numbers, 100+, much better than hybrids. EV's even with a large pack, eliminate the engine and accessories which weigh quite a bit.

 

[ucmndd]

You would think, but the EPA gas gallon equivalent numbers, 100+, much better than hybrids. EV's even with a large pack, eliminate the engine and accessories which weigh quite a bit.

Fuel efficiency != “environmentally friendly”

It would be fully insane to drive around a 7,000 pound 200kwh EV with 800 miles range in the name of environmentalism.