I live in the Supercharger black hole. According to the Supercharger map Tesla doesn't even have any plans to build any Superchargers here. The nearest Supercharger is 541 km/340 miles away from me...in the wrong direction. It's not a matter of "nice to have" longer range for me, it's a must have for me.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
bigbear
Member
The other part of this is less charging time. The more miles I can get into my battery, the less time I have to charge saving me even more money. I'll be more than happy with a 300 mile range. I'd only have to charge once a week, if that.
With my hybrid, I *might* stop for 15 minutes on interstate trips (I'm constantly finding myself in time shortages, generally speaking, not that I'm a masochist); the shorter the better. 30 is too much when I'm trying to make hay while the sun shines.
The fellow who remarked about winter climes also has a point. An extra cushion for range-killing temperatures and winds is crucial up north.
Candleflame
Active Member
On a long road trip in my ICE I will certainly do 400+ miles without stopping. My goal is to get from point A to B and stopping doesn't get me there. I think an acceptable range would be 400 at 70mph with 30 minutes for an extra 300 miles.
I want to make a trip non stop, and every 20-30min spent waiting for a charge is technically time wasted. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. I guarantee most EV owners will want the convenience of traveling anywhere they so chose without the need to "locate the nearest supercharger, potentially drive out of their way to reach it, waste 20-30min every 200-300miles in the summer and as low as 100-200 miles in winter/very cold climates". This means range has to be increased dramatically.
I think the sweet spot for exponential adoption will be 350-400miles real world driving. That would give customers in the coldest of climates enough range to make it to the nearest supercharger. The extrinsic costs associated with time spent charging is greatly diminished as the range of the vehicles increase. This will also allow the future Tesla Truck to be cost effective and range effective especially for hauling heavy loads. Just my 2cents
I think the sweet spot for exponential adoption will be 350-400miles real world driving. That would give customers in the coldest of climates enough range to make it to the nearest supercharger. The extrinsic costs associated with time spent charging is greatly diminished as the range of the vehicles increase. This will also allow the future Tesla Truck to be cost effective and range effective especially for hauling heavy loads. Just my 2cents
ProphetM
Member
Just because it's irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is to everyone. If I were to count on my hands the number of times range >300 miles has been useful in the last 3 years, I would need more hands.
Whether the benefit is slight or not depends on your driving pattern. The advantage of an ICE is not just total distance before refueling, it's also the ubiquity of the refueling network. As an ICE road tripper I don't usually plan a route that takes me through refueling spots and then decide where to eat based on where I need to get gas - that's backwards. I stop because I want to eat (or stretch, or whatever). I can decide where I want to eat first, with little regard to what gas station I will need to use, because gas stations are everywhere. Superchargers are not yet numerous enough to enable this pattern, so although the stop time can be similar, the choice of where to stop and what to do there is more limited than in an ICE. Out in the real world I do actually tend to plan fuel stops on road trips sometimes because of pricing considerations, so it's not going to be a huge adjustment for me to reverse my thinking. But that mental shift is going to be more difficult for at least some portion of car buyers. It may be mostly in their heads but that doesn't mean it won't influence their decision on whether to ditch their ICE. The argument about being able to fill up quickly and get back on the road is used because it's simple and quick, but the better argument is about choice, which is harder to put into words. Greater range more capably addresses the same problem as building out the supercharger network does - fears about the road-tripper's lack of choice, not their lack of ability to get where they're going.
If I'm headed to my sister's house in central California from Las Vegas, there are superchargers to help me get there with no problem, and it wouldn't take significantly more time than it does now with an ICE. But I have to stop where the superchargers are. Although I drive through Mojave and stopping there would be fine, I can't charge up while I get lunch at Stoken Donuts, because that's not where the supercharger is. On the way home through Barstow I can't charge up while I eat dinner at Idle Spurs, because the supercharger is miles away. More range and more superchargers will work together to ensure that my preferred choices are as available to me as they are to ICE drivers, without the double hit of stopping to eat and also stopping to charge.
I'll be getting a Model 3 as soon as I possibly can, but I will be getting a long-range version if it's offered. And although I would be able to deal with a range under 300 miles, not every argument against it must be considered specious.
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Supercharger blackhole? Arkansas? No? Oh Saskatoon.
Tesla doesn't even have any plans to build any Superchargers here by end of 2016.
Model 3 is a 2018 thing. By the time you can get a non signature model 3 we have 2017 and part of 2018 to add more superchargers wherever you are.
But yeah even if they add superchargers on Canada 1 or Canada 16 in Saskatchewan you might have to wait until 2018 or 2019 for one to be "close" to you.
- - - Updated - - -
Not all model 3 built in China.
I think by 2020 There will be US built, EU built, and China built Model 3s.
Elon is looking forward to when it will no longer make sense to ship Tesla's over seas on container ships. (other than to get them to Africa or Australia).
Last edited:
ryanjm
Tesla Podcast Host
Apologies, but where in that Google translation did it mention the 3 having greater range than the S or X?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
My point is that there is usually a pretty significant disconnect between what's perceived as useful and what's actually useful. When I got my Tesla and sold my Jetta to a friend I actually got him to agree to the stipulation that I retained the ability to borrow the car for longer trips. Guess how many times I activated that provision :wink:
Sometimes you have to live with an EV as your primary car for a few months before you really appreciate how much range you don't need. There have been a few occasions but that will be fixed by more fast chargers.
There are far too many people who think "250 is not enough," and won't buy without a significantly larger range (400, maybe even 500). Are many of them wasting money buying more battery than they need for 99% of their driving? Probably.
But you need to accept that some people just can't be educated on this; they're just too stuck in their ways. It's easier to give them an (unnecessarily large) battery, if that's what it takes to get them to accept an EV.
But you need to accept that some people just can't be educated on this; they're just too stuck in their ways. It's easier to give them an (unnecessarily large) battery, if that's what it takes to get them to accept an EV.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
300 mile Model 3, sure... Just not immediately.
The interesting thing with Teslas, and EV's in general, is that because the batteries keep getting better the range will keep increasing for possibly decades and will end up making ICE cars look silly (assuming some other form of transportation doesnt come along and negate the need for them, a la Hyperloop). Obviously we are nowhere near that yet, but it will eventually be there. Huge kWh packs combined with rapid charging tech or battery swaps that makes sense
The interesting thing with Teslas, and EV's in general, is that because the batteries keep getting better the range will keep increasing for possibly decades and will end up making ICE cars look silly (assuming some other form of transportation doesnt come along and negate the need for them, a la Hyperloop). Obviously we are nowhere near that yet, but it will eventually be there. Huge kWh packs combined with rapid charging tech or battery swaps that makes sense
No. Well, potentially you _could_ have a huge battery, but there's an issue of weight, size and cost-effectiveness.
Assuming $100/kWh with the same charging speed, and 50% better volumetric and gravimetric densities of an S battery, how many kWh would you want? (Could be a poll ...)
Remember that more battery is more weight, which adds cost not just in electricity but in supporting components.
And the battery size affects minimum vehicle size and cargo space.
I disagree. The biggest battery available will be sold first and the smaller ones will follow shortly thereafter.
BriansTesla
Old school meets new tech
I believe that Tesla will make improvements in aerodynamics, weight, efficiency in the inverter, motor and HVAC and in many other areas so 300mi range is very likely.
Mad Hungarian
Member
If the base version has a 200 - 250 mile real world range as has been proclaimed on multiple occasions, then any usefully bigger battery option will get you close to (or maybe past) 300 miles. For max range on the highway weight won't be a huge factor, aerodynamics will. If they can reduce the frontal area by 20% compared to the Model S then they will already get a very significant advantage (even if the drag coefficient does creep up slightly due to the taller profile the smaller car will need). And that's not including any other tech tricks they cook up in the meantime.
Similar threads
