500 + Mile Range Debate

[Giampigua]

Yes. A 500 mile range Model S/X would be horrifically expensive, heavy, and in the exact opposite market direction from what Tesla is trying to do in making very large numbers of mass-market affordable electric cars ala future Model 2

This is true if we believe that since 2017 there had been no battery improvement.
Instead, as we can see in the market, batteries improved a lot in terms of gravimetric and volumetric parameters.
Thus a MS with the same weight and chassis but with a 25/30% more range is definitively possible.
Which is exactly what some other producers are going to offer

 

[Giampigua]

Model S (and X) are going to take some serious redesign to fit 50% more battery in the chassis. I think there are a limited number of people who aren't buying a 400-mile Model S today who would buy one if it had 600 miles of range - unlikely enough to justify the aforementioned redesign. Also, the S is already a heavy car; adding 500+ pounds of additional battery pack isn't going to do it any favors in the ride and handling departments.

I see that roadster is available for orders again. At least in Europe/Italy.
Tesla says it will have 1.000 km range (625 miles).
If the issue of the weight is as you say, there is a contradiction here in Tesla...

 

[Big Earl]

This is true if we believe that since 2017 there had been no battery improvement.
Instead, as we can see in the market, batteries improved a lot in terms of gravimetric and volumetric parameters.
Thus a MS with the same weight and chassis but with a 25/30% more range is definitively possible.
Which is exactly what some other producers are going to offer

Model S has already taken advantage of powertrain improvements. What was 335 miles of range in 2017 is now 405 miles of range in a slightly lower capacity pack.

 

[Giampigua]

Model S has already taken advantage of powertrain improvements. What was 335 miles of range in 2017 is now 405 miles of range in a slightly lower capacity pack.

That’s what I’m saying: since 2017 battery capacity hadn’t been improved as it could have been possible to do.
It’s difficult for me to understand why they do not offer such an increase that would definitely convince those who did not choose EV yet (and me ), and at the same time offer 1000 km range on a sporty coupe, which is not the typical car families use and where low weight is much more important

 

[Big Earl]

That’s what I’m saying: since 2017 battery capacity hadn’t been improved as it could have been possible to do.
It’s difficult for me to understand why they do not offer such an increase that would definitely convince those who did not choose EV yet (and me ), and at the same time offer 1000 km range on a sporty coupe, which is not the typical car families use and where low weight is much more important

Now that's a pretty big claim. A longer-range Model S is unlikely to "definitely convince those who did not choose EV yet."

 

[Giampigua]

Now that's a pretty big claim. A longer-range Model S is unlikely to "definitely convince those who did not choose EV yet."

Ok, Sounds excessive...
But:
1) how many cars of the same class of model S are sold each year? Maybe some millions.
2) mutatis mutandis, my speech applies also to M3: its batteries are more recent, but surely something better exists. Panasonic, CATL and others already have more energy density batteries that they claim do not cost more than those actually in use.

 

[uscbucsfan]

Ok, Sounds excessive...
But:
1) how many cars of the same class of model S are sold each year? Maybe some millions.
2) mutatis mutandis, my speech applies also to M3: its batteries are more recent, but surely something better exists. Panasonic, CATL and others already have more energy density batteries that they claim do not cost more than those actually in use.

The S/X refresh has newer battery chemistry. Tesla chose the 18650 size for performance.

There's a reason why only 1 car currently has 500 miles of range and it's 160k. It's also the most efficient EV on the road. There's a trade-off between range and price. Chevy's 450 range Silverado is rumored to have a 212 kwh battery, which will take forever to charge and they will have battery supply restrictions just like they do with the Hummer.

 

[Giampigua]

The S/X refresh has newer battery chemistry. Tesla chose the 18650 size for performance.

There's a reason why only 1 car currently has 500 miles of range and it's 160k. It's also the most efficient EV on the road. There's a trade-off between range and price. Chevy's 450 range Silverado is rumored to have a 212 kwh battery, which will take forever to charge and they will have battery supply restrictions just like they do with the Hummer.

I never meant to have more range with the same price.
Newer chemistry but with the same range.

 

[uscbucsfan]

I never meant to have more range with the same price.
Newer chemistry but with the same range.

If there were more energy dense options, you don't think Tesla would be using them?

Outside of Lucid, which is a more efficient car than the S, what car even competes with the MS or M3 in range?

 

[ZenRockGarden]

If there were more energy dense options, you don't think Tesla would be using them?

Outside of Lucid, which is a more efficient car than the S, what car even competes with the MS or M3 in range?

FYI Lucid uses a larger 118 kWh pack to get its long range. It's efficiency is around 240 kWh/mi which I can get in my bulky model Y. This is also part of why the long range Lucid costs more.

 

[uscbucsfan]

FYI Lucid uses a larger 118 kWh pack to get its long range. It's efficiency is around 240 kWh/mi which I can get in my bulky model Y. This is also part of why the long range Lucid costs more.

The MY/X are the least efficient Teslas at highway speeds. Lucid hit 500.1 miles at 70 mph, the Model S refresh hit 320 out of 405 advertised range.

Lucid is the only car in the world that can do that and only has 18 kWh larger battery than the MS, yet has 180 more miles at 70 mph.

In the test the Lucid averaged 4.58 miles per kWh, while the MS average 4.02.

Drag is more damaging than anything else at that speed.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

The MY/X are the least efficient Teslas at highway speeds. Lucid hit 500.1 miles at 70 mph, the Model S refresh hit 320 out of 405 advertised range.

Lucid is the only car in the world that can do that and only has 18 kWh larger battery than the MS, yet has 180 more miles at 70 mph.

In the test the Lucid averaged 4.58 miles per kWh, while the MS average 4.02.

Drag is more damaging than anything else at that speed.

Absolutely drag is key at highway speed.

Lucid puts 18% more batteries in their car, and spends cubic dollars and interior space to trim highway aero. This is how they notch a bigger number on that one dimension... for lots more money

FYI the difference in efficiency between 4.58 and 4.02 is 14%.... smaller than the battery size

 

[Cheburashka]

Yes. A 500 mile range Model S/X would be horrifically expensive, heavy, and in the exact opposite market direction from what Tesla is trying to do in making very large numbers of mass-market affordable electric cars ala future Model 2

Nonsense.

The Zeekr 001 from China does over 500 miles real world highway range AND costs around $50k.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Nonsense.

The Zeekr 001 from China does over 500 miles real world highway range AND costs around $50k.

I hate bench-racing with garbage-information.

The Zeekr 001 with claimed 500 mile range is the one with the 140 kWh pack. It does not exist, and has no price. The one which is actually on sale for $50k is the 100 kWh version that has (Big Surprise!) 375 mile range - less than the Model S

When reading press-info on electric cars be really really careful when you see the words "UP TO xxx range"

 

[uscbucsfan]

FYI the difference in efficiency between 4.58 and 4.02 is 14%.... smaller than the battery size

I think you are confused what you are saying there. The Lucid has 18% bigger battery and 180 more miles of range or 56.25% more range.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

I think you are confused what you are saying there. The Lucid has 18% bigger battery and 180 more miles of range or 56.25% more range.

Let me try to be more clear. The Lucid is 14% more efficient at highway speed, and has an 18% larger battery - these two combine to give is a larger range than the Model S. The MAJORITY of the higher range is coming from the bigger battery.

Also the current Model S has a range of 405 miles. Lucid has 516, which is not 56% more in even the most generous form of percentage-math.

 

[uscbucsfan]

Also the current Model S has a range of 405 miles. Lucid has 516, which is not 56% more in even the most generous form of percentage-math.

We are talking about at 70 mph here.

The MS had a max range of 320 on 100% charge while the Lucid hit 500.1. That's 56% more.

There are MUTLIPLE sites that have done real world test...this is verifiable.

 

[Big Earl]

I have a bone to pick with a lot of those "real world" tests. Many of them do a loop style test to "negate the effect of wind," regardless of actual wind speed and direction. That is, unfortunately, not how wind and aerodynamics work. Head wind obviously has the highest impact, but side wind also has a high impact on efficiency. Also, a tail wind does not fully offset the effects of an equal head wind.

The result is that vehicles driven in wind - any wind - will be less efficient than vehicles driven in calm conditions. This wouldn't be such a big deal if they'd describe the overall wind conditions, but they don't - they, inappropriately, directly compare vehicles that are not competing on a level playing field.

That said, the Model S larger frontal area means that efficiency will decrease more rapidly at higher speeds, so it's expected that a Model S would perform worse than a Lucid at 70 MPH than it does in lower speed EPA test conditions.

 

[outdoors]

Got to think that Tesla has done the math on the take rate of higher battery. Focus groups, and maybe a dash of nuralink testing. I would say it doesn't support it or the profits don't lie. Or both.

Tesla's desire to put halo cars into the space lately(absent track package for Plaid) is plain to see. They want volume awards. Thus leading to more success in Tesla's mission. More cars in average peoples hands dispels many of the mysteries or myths surrounding EV's. A chicken in every pot, and an EV in every garage.

I know many like to say there are so many just like me(wanting giant range), and that would translate to so many sales. Tesla will tell us what we need, with some variation, and one can choose to accept or not. I know that is not a popular opinion on how Tesla does it, but I can think of some very successful companies that sold products by telling us what we needed vs. giving everyone everything they wanted. Sometimes those want products are too hard to understand and funky.

Sell more cars. More superchargers. Smaller batteries dependent on location, and raw materials available.

 

[uscbucsfan]

I have a bone to pick with a lot of those "real world" tests. Many of them do a loop style test to "negate the effect of wind," regardless of actual wind speed and direction. That is, unfortunately, not how wind and aerodynamics work. Head wind obviously has the highest impact, but side wind also has a high impact on efficiency. Also, an tail wind does not fully offset the effects of an equal head wind. The result is that vehicles driven in wind - any wind - will be less efficient than vehicles driven in calm conditions. This wouldn't be such a big deal if they'd describe the overall wind conditions, but they don't - they, inappropriately, directly compare vehicles that are not competing on a level playing field.

That said, the Model S larger frontal area means that efficiency will decrease more rapidly at higher speeds, so it's expected that a Model S would perform worse than a Lucid at 70 MPH than it does in lower speed EPA test conditions.

Both tests were done on an interstate. Maybe this is still loop style tests, but I'm not sure. They do say they can't completely replicate weather conditions, but they attempt to. They did describe the wind conditions on both.