75 S and X discontinued

[ecarfan]

Theoretically you might see midrange of 300 and LR nearing 400miles.

Yes but I would not use the term “midrange”. I think that will be the range of the base version, and Tesla won’t use the term “base”, either. It will simply be the EPA number for the lowest cost S/X version. The higher capacity battery pack that gives the higher EPA number will be the “Long Range” option.

 

[Olle]

The 2170 cell is around 50% larger by volume than the 18650, but it can deliver almost double the current (the 18650 delivers 3,000 mA, and the 2170 has been tested at 5,750-6,000 mA). It's how the smaller Model 3 was able to attain lower cost and better range per size of the battery pack. It's the highest energy density at the lowest cost in the World. Both batteries cost the same to produce now. Why wouldn't they want that efficiency in the S and X too?

The reason probably remains allocation of resources. A single week earlier production start of Model Y might be worth more than an Model S/X update coming next week rather than 2 years later, as a theoretical example.

 

[hiroshiy]

Just2 cents, changing battery and pack design cost a lot - and I don't know for sure but if the cells are higher, will the floor rise because of this?

As some people mentioned upthread, I think range is more important than kWh. It looks to me cheaper and absolutely easier to change the motors and remove battery heaters from S/X to get higher efficiency?

So I would guess:
- remove 75 to drive people to 3 for now
- after 3 orders are further accelerared, Tesla could reintroduce 75/100 again with upgraded motor(s), with 10% more range?

 

[HankLloydRight]

Crazy idea that I don't know is even possible, but nothing says Tesla has to orient the 2170 batteries in a vertical position like the 18650s. I'm sure they could come up with an alternative design with the cells laying sideways and take up about the same space as the existing battery packs. But I'm sure that cooling and many other factors might make that not work.

 

[chispas]

I would call it "standard range"

 

[ohmman]

Crazy idea that I don't know is even possible, but nothing says Tesla has to orient the 2170 batteries in a vertical position like the 18650s. I'm sure they could come up with an alternative design with the cells laying sideways and take up about the same space as the existing battery packs. But I'm sure that cooling and many other factors might make that not work.

The most powerful battery orientation of which I’m aware is some vertical and some angled this way and that.

 

[George Jetson]

Ahem... SR,MR,LR - > standard range, medium range and long range. And maybe a really long range... let's call it the Texas medium range (TMR) to reference a really old joke.

The new longer range battery will take a nod from SpaceX. MS BFB

 

[hiroshiy]

Crazy idea that I don't know is even possible, but nothing says Tesla has to orient the 2170 batteries in a vertical position like the 18650s. I'm sure they could come up with an alternative design with the cells laying sideways and take up about the same space as the existing battery packs. But I'm sure that cooling and many other factors might make that not work.

My speculation, but if you lay 2170 sideways The coolant need to go up and down, instead of horizontally. Would that affect any efficiency?

 

[HankLloydRight]

My speculation, but if you lay 2170 sideways The coolant need to go up and down, instead of horizontally. Would that affect any efficiency?

No, not really. Currently the coolant flows in vertical, narrow ribbons between the cells. There's no reason this can't be turned on it's side. The coolant would still flow horizontally.

Even with several layers of cells (see below) the coolant would enter from the top, still flow horizontally between the cells, then vertically between the layers, letting gravity help a bit. Again, this just turned on its side:

 

[HankLloydRight]

Here you can see the cooling ribbon between cells/layers is nearly flat.

 

[Olle]

It's hard to imagine that there are any problems at all for Tesla to design a Model 3 style battery and motor layout that works for S/X. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say Elon could do it himself in less than two hours (and probably already has done, many times over in his sleep). The interesting questions are what are their opportunity costs for validation, preparation of supply chain and production, new software, re certification the cars in different markets (new crash tests?) and is it worth to do it now vs everything else that they need to do?

S/X are already outselling the ultra luxury SUVs and Sedans of the world why change a winning concept? The enemy of good is perfect, or something.
If you were Tesla inc, would you rather speed up the launch Model Y that millions of people around the world are asking for or redesign S/X for supercharger V3 that nobody outside of these type of forums ever asked for let alone knows what it is ;-)

Not saying they're not doing it but I'm guessing not. We shall soon see...

 

[George Jetson]

If you were Tesla inc, would you rather speed up the launch Model Y that millions of people around the world are asking for or redesign S/X for supercharger V3 that nobody outside of these type of forums ever asked for let alone knows what it is ;-)
Not saying they're not doing it but I'm guessing not. We shall soon see...

Isn't this more of an emerging issue in Europe, where automakers are banding together to create their own fast-charging network (CCS HPC)? It will be a market differentiator and Tesla's history suggests they won't be the last one to the party. There are already retrofitted SC stations with CCS, so this seems like a harbinger. First look at Tesla’s new dual connector CCS Supercharger

 

[ohmman]

Here you can see the cooling ribbon between cells/layers is nearly flat.

I wonder if there would be an issue with compression of the cooling ribbon with the cells on their sides. In the vertical orientation, that ribbon is in its strongest position, and doesn't have much vertical strain being put on it. But when horizontal, it'll have the weight of at least some cells constantly compressing as the vehicle travels over the roadway.

 

[henderrj]

is it worth to do it now vs everything else that they need to do?

If you were Tesla inc, would you rather speed up the launch Model Y that millions of people around the world are asking for or redesign S/X for supercharger V3 that nobody outside of these type of forums ever asked for let alone knows what it is ;-.

Not everyone works on everything. We tend to see development as monolithic, it's easier to visualize that way. The truth is since the decision was made to base the model y on the model 3 chassis there is no more battery development needed for it. Well, probably.

The point being the battery guys may not be busy at all!

It also depends on the pickup. If they decided to make the pickup battery the same size as the S / X chassis the development effort on it becomes much more relevant. I think I said somewhere that I believe the pickup will have multiple battery packs. Just like the semi does. Oops, I better say that last was speculation or I'll get in trouble!

 

[Olle]

Isn't this more of an emerging issue in Europe, where automakers are banding together to create their own fast-charging network (CCS HPC)? It will be a market differentiator and Tesla's history suggests they won't be the last one to the party. There are already retrofitted SC stations with CCS, so this seems like a harbinger. First look at Tesla’s new dual connector CCS Supercharger

Probably, yes. But how about this scenario:
First my background for writing this. Some of my German friends have become angry almost to the point of exploding when I suggested that Tesla could be a competitor of Mercedes and Porsche or should even be allowed to be mentioned in the same room as these. Both that it is American and that its electric seems just too much to stomach. Perhaps then it's almost better to let Porsche Taycan be the German pride and poster boy of ultra fast charging for a while and get really high PR to get the Porsche buyers to buy Taycan instead of ICE Porsche, to normalize EVs in Germany so to speak. Then once that ball is rolling and sport/luxury EV is no longer weird, people will start considering it. Tesla can then update the S/X and blow everyone out of the water again and grow even more than it otherwise could have.

 

[electronblue]

Isn't this more of an emerging issue in Europe, where automakers are banding together to create their own fast-charging network (CCS HPC)? It will be a market differentiator and Tesla's history suggests they won't be the last one to the party. There are already retrofitted SC stations with CCS, so this seems like a harbinger. First look at Tesla’s new dual connector CCS Supercharger

Over on M3 forums there is interesting talk of USA CCS chargers getting 350 kWh also and speculation that a Tesla charge port could physically fit both Tesla and CCS charge connectors. It seems to me 350 kWh can’t work over adapters so it would be great for Tesla to be able to tap natively into these 350 kWh stations in the USA also. Electrify America is building up significant CCS presence and charging speed improvements also in America.

I made a mock-up recently what a U.S. Model 3 would look like with both Tesla and U.S. CCS connectors. They should fit similar to China where Model 3 gets dual connectors underneath the same flap.

Rumor summary: Blind-spot cameras, Rain sensing, Level 3, Big battery, Interior/HUD

The EA chargers being built in TN along I-40 are 350 kW, as shown in this attached photo:

View attachment 367968

 

[ohmman]

Electrify America is building up significant CCS presence and charging speed improvements also in America.

I ran across a lot of these Electrify America CCS stations on PlugShare while planning our summer road trip. I wouldn’t complain about being able to access them.

 

[hiroshiy]

No, not really. Currently the coolant flows in vertical, narrow ribbons between the cells. There's no reason this can't be turned on it's side. The coolant would still flow horizontally.

Even with several layers of cells (see below) the coolant would enter from the top, still flow horizontally between the cells, then vertically between the layers, letting gravity help a bit. Again, this just turned on its side:

Thanks for the diagram. If you just placing the coolant ribbon that way (top of the diagram as top), you can place approx 3-4 layers of horizontal cells. I still wonder how to tackle these potential issues:
1. At the end of the ribbon you need to go sideways (change direction). It looks to me that the ribbon placement will cause some friction of the coolant?
2. When the pack is punctured from the bottom multiple cells are vulnerable, in horizontal placement. Also, the ribbon will be 100% damaged so it's going to be difficult to repair the pack after such incident.

 

[Beltsbear]

Just2 cents, changing battery and pack design cost a lot - and I don't know for sure but if the cells are higher, will the floor rise because of this?

The floor would not rise, the ground clearance would diminish by 5mm. Not enough to worry about. They might change the suspension, or something else, but probably not necessary.

 

[ohmman]

75D still looks available. I forgot the old Elon “I didn’t say which Sunday” trick.