500 + Mile Range Debate

[Terminator857]

... bigger battery makes your car A LOT heavier ALL the time.

Batteries are getting lighter as tech improves. Each time battery density improves the amount of energy increases, but the weight doesn't. Can get either longer range or lighter vehicle with improved battery tech. I don't notice ill effects of a heavy vehicle. I do notice positive effects of a low center of gravity. My Model 3 takes turns like something amazing, and have yet to hear the tires squeal.

Someone has estimated that battery density improves 5% a year. Here are some numbers of increased range without heavier batteries making assumption of 5% energy density improvement per year.

Year	Range
2021	350
2022	368
2023	386
2024	405
2025	425
2026	447
2027	469
2028	492
2029	517
2030	543

 

[nwdiver]

Batteries are getting lighter as tech improves.

I agree a 500 mile battery in 10 years could weigh less than a 300 mile battery today. But it's still going to weigh ~60% more than if you just had a 300 mile battery. I don't think anyone here is suggesting a 500 mile battery isn't possible. My point is that as battery technology improves it would be more worth while to reduce the vehicle weight and cost than increase the range.

Just like the S. We will see Dual Motor and Performance cars get a range boost. Probably 100KWh packs. ~70KWh packs will likely become SR

What do you think is more critical as battery costs come down? Adding range that is almost never used or lowering the price of the car?

 

[Battpower]

I think efficiency should be a primary focus. I just got a Kona and it turns in a real 300 miles from a 64kwh battery. Hauling more weight than you need just increases tire wear, friction losses, increases current and heat loss on uphill and wear on drive and suspension. If you are towing, I guess a 20-30% larger battery is useful, but for acceleration weight is a big negative.

Also, having a bigger / more expensive / more resource hungry battery potentially increases asset depreciation and certainly ties up value in cars that only has intermittent value for most.

There must be a sweet spot, and the sweet spot may well change as charging speeds and charging infrastructure develops.

If the Kona could handle 150kw charging from 20 to 70% I find it hard to imagine that I would be bothered about more than 300 - 350 mile range. Of course cold weather performance does play a part too.

What I am noticing is that while the MS Raven still loses several miles range a week if not driven, the Kona sits at exactly the same range.

 

[Kee_Chain]

Batteries are getting lighter as tech improves. Each time battery density improves the amount of energy increases, but the weight doesn't. Can get either longer range or lighter vehicle with improved battery tech. I don't notice ill effects of a heavy vehicle. I do notice positive effects of a low center of gravity. My Model 3 takes turns like something amazing, and have yet to hear the tires squeal.

Someone has estimated that battery density improves 5% a year. Here are some numbers of increased range without heavier batteries making assumption of 5% energy density improvement per year.

Year	Range
2021	350
2022	368
2023	386
2024	405
2025	425
2026	447
2027	469
2028	492
2029	517
2030	543

I plan on keeping my Model Y for at least 10 years or 200,000 miles (I most likely won't hit 200,000 miles in 10 years). I am confident we would see a 500 to 550-mile range car by then, if not more! By then, we should have even a better battery design than the current cylindrical lithium-ion battery. Pretty excited to see what the next 10 years will bring to the EV market!

 

[Terminator857]

Lucid Air Dream Edition comes out with 520 mile range. Touring G at 516 mile range.

Compare Side-by-Side

Compare the MPG of cars and trucks side-by-side. Compare the gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions of new and used cars and trucks

www.fueleconomy.gov

 

[nwdiver]

Hauling more weight than you need just increases tire wear, friction losses, increases current and heat loss on uphill and wear on drive and suspension.

Yeah... I don't think people appreciate how much damage that extra weight does. And if you only use the extra range >300 miles 0.1% of the time and that 0.1% of the time it's only saving you a few minutes of charging; Lets say with future battery technology a 300 mile range vehicle weighs 3500# and a 500mile range vehicle weighs 4000#. Road wear is the the forth power! So increasing the weight by 14% increases road wear by 70%.

 

[Candleflame]

the issue is that if you get 15% degradation (completely normal on a Model 3 after a couple of years) you dont have the original milage. and if you drive i.e. 150km/h you have even less range. 400 miles of range is a must imho.

 

[Battpower]

if you get 15% degradation

after a couple of years

Is that really normal / common?

My Renault Zoe (40kwh, real 150 to 180 mile range) showed 7% loss of battery health and almost no evidence or real world range over 4 years / 35k miles.

My 2019 model S R LR still shows 365 to 373 miles based on Teslamate data.

I do agree that extra battery capacity at the start should prolong the vehicle's viability, but I'm not convinced range / battery capacity is the only (or even most important) significant health metric. If, for example, older batteries (by years, not by energy throughput) cease to be able to handle 'as-new' charge rates, then there may be no way of getting around replacing batteries after say 10 years if you need decent DC charge rates.

I have not yet seen a Tesla-quoted specification for what constitutes 'normal' / acceptable / warrantied charging behaviour. Sure, we know that 'excessive supercharging isn't a good thing', but I keep reading about owners of early cars that haven't supercharged much if at all and haven't put many miles on their cars either yet still have restricted DC charge rates.

So I guess I'm saying big batteries have benefits. That was a big factor in getting the LR. But if as soon as a battery is in service, its age clock is ticking, then that's just another slightly hidden cost, along with extra weight and wear.

 

[Candleflame]

Is that really normal / common?

My Renault Zoe (40kwh, real 150 to 180 mile range) showed 7% loss of battery health and almost no evidence or real world range over 4 years / 35k miles.

My 2019 model S R LR still shows 365 to 373 miles based on Teslamate data.

I do agree that extra battery capacity at the start should prolong the vehicle's viability, but I'm not convinced range / battery capacity is the only (or even most important) significant health metric. If, for example, older batteries (by years, not by energy throughput) cease to be able to handle 'as-new' charge rates, then there may be no way of getting around replacing batteries after say 10 years if you need decent DC charge rates.

I have not yet seen a Tesla-quoted specification for what constitutes 'normal' / acceptable / warrantied charging behaviour. Sure, we know that 'excessive supercharging isn't a good thing', but I keep reading about owners of early cars that haven't supercharged much if at all and haven't put many miles on their cars either yet still have restricted DC charge rates.

So I guess I'm saying big batteries have benefits. That was a big factor in getting the LR. But if as soon as a battery is in service, its age clock is ticking, then that's just another slightly hidden cost, along with extra weight and wear.

yes complete normal. Model 3 starts of with 78.8kwh. I have 68.4kwh (449km) which is just below average on teslafi for a car with 40k km and 2 years old.
Thats around 13% degradation.

 

[Battpower]

yes complete normal. Model 3 starts of with 78.8kwh. I have 68.4kwh (449km) which is just below average on teslafi for a car with 40k km and 2 years old.
Thats around 13% degradation.

iirc, M3 owners see quite a drop with say 12 months. May be 10%. Would you agree with that or do you think it's more linear and progressive?

What's a 'normal' figure for say 4 years? Using Teslafi?

 

[Candleflame]

iirc, M3 owners see quite a drop with say 12 months. May be 10%. Would you agree with that or do you think it's more linear and progressive?

What's a 'normal' figure for say 4 years? Using Teslafi?

cant see that far ahead unfortunately.

To me it looks like 5% in year 1, 5% in year 2 then maybe 3% year 3 and 2% year 4?
The problem is that Model 3 seems to have degradation more related to time than kms.
I.e. there isnt really any difference between my car with 40k kms and cars with 100k or 150k kms. Degradation seems almost entirely time dependent. This is also reflected by a few covid posts here where people complaing about having 5% degradation after 1 year of ownership but only with i.e. 5000km on the car.

 

[nwdiver]

400 miles of range is a must imho.

Maybe in Australia but here in the states there are a lot of people that never drive their commuter >100 miles/day. If they take a trip they either fly or take a larger family car not their daily commuter. Then even on a trip most people aren't going to sit in their car for over 3 hours. Even at highway speeds that's <300 miles of real world range before you would stop to plug in.

 

[Candleflame]

Maybe in Australia but here in the states there are a lot of people that never drive their commuter >100 miles/day. If they take a trip they either fly or take a larger family car not their daily commuter. Then even on a trip most people aren't going to sit in their car for over 3 hours. Even at highway speeds that's <300 miles of real world range before you would stop to plug in.

in australia 300 miles is enough. most ppl here dont drive long distances and they stick to the very low speed limits. they also drive bumper to bumper for extra aero.

 

[ThomasD]

Most of these trips are done with Teslas that are fairly new. Would a Tesla that gets 300 miles now be able to do long distance when it is 7 to 9 years old? Could you travel across rural North Dakota ? I think a 500 mile car would be able to travel long distances better even when it is 7 to 8 years old. As these cars get older they get cheaper and will appeal to more people. If people can travel like they do with their ice cars and trucks I think winter travel will be less worrisome. In some places of the country just down the road a piece may mean an hour trip to Walmart at 10 below zero. Other places it means a 15 minute trip to Walmart at 50 degrees.

 

[Terminator857]

Lets say with future battery technology a 300 mile range vehicle weighs 3500# and a 500mile range vehicle weighs 4000#. Road wear is the the forth power! So increasing the weight by 14% increases road wear by 70%.

Can you tell us the calc and road wear for a semi?

 

[nwdiver]

Can you tell us the calc and road wear for a semi?

Same metric applies except the weight is spread better. Still does >300x more damage than a car. That's why there are weigh stations and why we need to get freight off the roads and onto rail. But there's a difference between a cost to get a product from A to B and a cost to carry extra range that's ~never really used.

 

[WarEagleGo]

Yeah... I don't think people appreciate how much damage that extra weight does. And if you only use the extra range >300 miles 0.1% of the time and that 0.1% of the time it's only saving you a few minutes of charging; Lets say with future battery technology a 300 mile range vehicle weighs 3500# and a 500mile range vehicle weighs 4000#. Road wear is the the forth power! So increasing the weight by 14% increases road wear by 70%.

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the road damage caused by a single 18-wheeler was equivalent to the damage caused by 9,600 cars. (GAO: Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford) The study seems to have based its calculations around the number of axles per vehicle. The study found that essentially, road damage was related to the 4th power of the relative loads. That means that if one vehicle carries a load of 1,500 pounds per axle and another carries a load of 3,000 pounds on each axle, the road damage caused by the heavier vehicle is not twice as much, but 2 to the 4th power as much (2x2x2x2 = 16 times as much road damage as the lighter vehicle).

The Relationship between Vehicle Weight, Road Damage, and You | DENENA | POINTS

We’re probably all familiar with the problems of driving on damaged roads. When your vehicle hits a particularly serious pothole, it can sometimes cause your tire to flatten or blow out or even cause an axle to break. And then you lose control of your vehicle and wreck. Click the link to read...

www.denenapoints.com

Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Support

The Nation's highways are deteriorating at an accelerated pace and sufficient funds are not available to cope with current needs or meet future...

www.gao.gov

 

[Giampigua]

Yeah... I don't think people appreciate how much damage that extra weight does. And if you only use the extra range >300 miles 0.1% of the time and that 0.1% of the time it's only saving you a few minutes of charging; Lets say with future battery technology a 300 mile range vehicle weighs 3500# and a 500mile range vehicle weighs 4000#. Road wear is the the forth power! So increasing the weight by 14% increases road wear by 70%.

My friend,

the numbers of your example are simply unrealistic - consequently your conclusions.
1) Who said that 0,1% is an average correct estimation on extra range use?
In my case, for example, the value is 20%, i.e. 200 times more frequent than your estimate. (Note: this is checked by the ABRP reports of my trips).
2) You guess that in order to increase range by 66% weight increases by 14%.
Here we are discussing to increase the range from the existing 400 miles to 500 miles - which is a 25% increase (not a 66% increase).
According to your assumptions, this would bring to a weight increase of 5% - which is by far different of 14% (say 1/3 of your example).
Cumulating your unrealistic assumption effects you have a perspection of the real word which is mistaken by 600 times!

No chance to have an assertive discussion with you

 

[ThomasD]

Both trucking and rail have their positives and negatives. Advantages and disadvantages of shipping by rail

The advantages & disadvantages of railway transport. Railway transport occupies a significant role in the transport system of a country because the development of trade, industry and commerce of a country largely depends on the development of railways. Advantages: It facilitates long distance travel and transport of bulky goods which are not easily transported through motor vehicles. It is a quick and more regular form of transport because it helps in the transportation of goods with speed and certainty. It helps in the industrialization process of a country by easy transportation of coal and raw-materials at a cheaper rate. It helps in the quick movement of goods from one place to another at the time of emergencies like famines and scarcity. It encourages mobility of labour and thereby provides a great scope for employment. Railway is the safest form of transport. The chances of accidents and breakdown of railways are minimum as compared to other modes of transport. Moreover, the traffic can be protected from the exposure to sun, rain snow etc. The carrying capacity of the railways is extremely large. Moreover, its capacity is elastic which can easily be increased by adding more wagons. It is the largest public undertaking in the country. Railways perform many public utility services. Their charges are based on charge what the traffic can bear principles which helps the poor. In fact, it is a national necessity.

Disadvantages: The railway requires a large investment of capital. The cost of construction, maintenance and overhead expenses are very high as compared to other modes of transport. Moreover, the investments are specific and immobile. In case the traffic is not sufficient, the investments may mean wastage of huge resources. Another disadvantages of railway transport is its inflexibility. It routes and timings cannot be adjusted to individual requirements. Rail transport cannot provide door to door service as it is tied to a particular track. Intermediate loading or unloading involves greater cost, more wear and tear and wastage of time. The time cost of terminal operations are a great disadvantage of rail transport. As railways require huge capital outlay, they may give rise to monopolies and work against public interest at large. Even if controlled and managed by the government, lack of competition may breed in inefficiency and high costs. Railway transport is unsuitable and uneconomical for short distances and small traffic of goods. It involves much time and labour in booking and taking delivery of goods through railways as compared to motor transport. Because of huge capital requirements and traffic, railways cannot be operated economically in rural areas. Thus, large rural areas have no railway even today. This causes much inconvenience to the people living in rural areas. Submitted to RB by Vipul M

 

[nwdiver]

My friend,

the numbers of your example are simply unrealistic - consequently your conclusions.
1) Who said that 0,1% is an average correct estimation on extra range use?
In my case, for example, the value is 20%, i.e. 200 times more frequent than your estimate. (Note: this is checked by the ABRP reports of my trips).
2) You guess that in order to increase range by 66% weight increases by 14%.
Here we are discussing to increase the range from the existing 400 miles to 500 miles - which is a 25% increase (not a 66% increase).
According to your assumptions, this would bring to a weight increase of 5% - which is by far different of 14% (say 1/3 of your example).
Cumulating your unrealistic assumption effects you have a perspection of the real word which is mistaken by 600 times!

No chance to have an assertive discussion with you

1) Chargers are spaced every ~170 miles or so. How often do you think people are driving even ~200 miles w/o charging let alone ~300. <1% of my miles are in excess of 200 miles w/o charging and it would easily be 1/10th that >300 miles if I had a car with 400 miles of range.

2) The point is that a linear increase in range results in an exponential increase in road damage. Why carry weight that's ~never useful?

We need more fast chargers. 110% agree. We need battery chemistries that can charge fast to a higher SOC without tapering at 50%. 110% agree. We get that and range over ~300 miles just means more road wear for ~no benefit.