85 to 100 : only 15 kWh Increase in 4 years?

[Electroman]

Now that 100kWh S is in production, time for some reflection. Tesla introduced the 85kWh in 2012 and it took 4 years to get to 100kWh.

A 15 kWh increase over 4 years. Or about 4% a year. Even Nissan and BMW were able to increase from 24 to 30 over the same period or about 6% a year.

A bit disappointing isn't it ?

Agreed from a cost perspective Tesla has made amazing strides, more than what was predicted. In 2011 we were told getting the price down to less than $100/kWh is more than 10-15 years away but now we know Tesla will get there in 5 or 6 years thanks to Gigafactory.

But from an energy density perspective the progress is a bit underwhelming.

 

[techmaven]

To be fair, Tesla was already using some of the highest specific energy cells available for this application in abundant quantity. Nissan was not. BMW was not.

 

[artsci]

And BMW and Nissan made the increases on a much lower base, which is much easier to do.

 

[tomas]

I suspect it is a matter of priorities. Remember, quotes from Elon and JB years ago indicated they don't think more range really necessary, and that's even more true with all the superchargers built out.

Actually, I think the increases in largest S/X battery are more motivated by upping the flagship performance than range.

Other seemingly more important priorities over last 3 years:

1. Supercharger buildout
2. Service network
3. International growth
4. Pre owned
5. AP
6. D
7. X
8. Ludicrous, launch
9. Model 3
10. Gigafactory (i.e., bring $/kWh down and increase capacity
11. Powerwall, solar city integration

Tesla has proven that the impossible gets done when it's a priority, and the mundane seldom gets beyond acceptable (think media player).

If tesla ever prioritizes battery capacity, I suspect they'll crush 4% per year.

 

[jelloslug]

Increasing battery size is not the only way to increase the range. The 60D vs the old 60 represents a 5% increase in range with no change in battery size.

 

[MDinFL]

I'm new to this. In fact, I don't even have my car yet (a red CPO 2013 P85). But I think that 300 or so is a reasonable threshold. I live in Florida. I figured with my P85, I can get just about anywhere I want to go, and back, on a full charge. If I want to go further, there's a supercharger along the way. My current car has a gas range of about 400 miles. It would take me a little longer to get there, but I could duplicate that range fairly easily and at much lower cost. I would hope that Supercharging is a priority. For me, they just opened an SC in Ocala, so I could make it to Gainesville without a worry. The Plantation SC is operational, which makes things good going south. There is apparently a planned SC for Naples, which would come in handy as SW Florida coverage is sparse. I'm excited to get my car. As excited as I was when I got my first Euro sport sedan, an Audi 4000.

 

[bob_p]

All of the current battery packs are using the same batteries.

Musk commented that the 100 battery packs are more complex.

With the Gigafactory coming online, it's likely Tesla will shift to newer batteries, which should provide an increase in capacity, and could lower the complexity of the 100 Kwh battery packs.

Since the Supercharger network is designed to adequately support 85 Kwh battery packs (and with patience, can be used by owners with smaller battery packs), there may not be much need to go beyond a 100 or 120 Kwh battery pack, at least for long distance driving on routes covered by the SCs.

Compared to our P85, a 100D could have 25% increase in range. If that would allow us to drive at reasonable highway speeds throughout our trips, and keep the charging in the sweet spot (under 80% of battery capacity), we wouldn't get much benefit from a larger battery. With a larger battery pack, we might be able to stop at fewer SCs on a long road trip - but we'd end up spending about the same amount of time charging (assuming the charging rates don't change), just spending longer at each SC.

What seems more likely than continuing to increase the range is to hit an optimal pack size (100 might not be enough), and then focus on driving the costs down.

 

[Electroman]

Look at the strides they have made in other aspects, every year seems to bring about new and exciting improvements in:

Performance (0 to 60)
Charging speed (130 KW from earlier 90 with super chilled cables)
Driving assistance (AP)
Cell level costs

But not so much in energy density. My point is increasing the energy density is hard. And Tesla hasn't cracked it anymore than other manufacturers. Which in some sense is a bit sobering.

 

[3s-a-charm]

Tesla has proven that the impossible gets done when it's a priority, and the mundane seldom gets beyond acceptable (think media player).

Hey, I love my media player! I can pause AND skip songs!

 

[Matias]

85 battery has 81 kWh:s so if 100 battery is indeed 100kWh:s, it is 19 kWs difference.

Source

Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

wk057 propably knows more about Tesla Model S than anyone outside Tesla.

He e.g. put autopilot to classic Model S and has done teardown of several Model S packs and reverse engineered BMS and a lot more. He has built solarpower which uses as storage cells from two disassembled Tesla pack.

He was also the person who discovered P100 several months ago in Tesla's firmware.

 

[ecarfan]

Now that 100kWh S is in production, time for some reflection. Tesla introduced the 85kWh in 2012 and it took 4 years to get to 100kWh.

A 15 kWh increase over 4 years. Or about 4% a year. Even Nissan and BMW were able to increase from 24 to 30 over the same period or about 6% a year.

A bit disappointing isn't it ?

I do not find that disappointing at all. With the Model S 85, Tesla started at a point light years ahead of the competition. Four years later the competition is still far behind in terms of capacity and range. In fact, using the word "competition" is inaccurate: Tesla still has no competition 8 years after the Roadster -- the world's first long range production BEV -- was first for sale!

Nissan and BMW started a a relatively low level of battery capacity. So they had more room to improve. Tesla started at a high level and have continued to improve. But it is fallacious to assume that over the past four years Tesla should increase their battery capacity at the same percentage growth rate as much lower range BEVs made by other companies. Tesla doesn't need to and it would only add to the cost of the car and the weight of the car.

 

[Krugerrand]

But not so much in energy density. My point is increasing the energy density is hard. And Tesla hasn't cracked it anymore than other manufacturers. Which in some sense is a bit sobering.

Elon and JB have talked about this several times publically. They're on track.

 

[thx1139]

Does cost have any thing to do with it? Were they willing to take less margin on the 85 4 years ago then they are now with the 100. Maybe if they were willing to take the equivalent margin now the 100 would actually be 120. Just a thought.

 

[TSLATed]

I'm new to this. In fact, I don't even have my car yet (a red CPO 2013 P85). But I think that 300 or so is a reasonable threshold. I live in Florida. I figured with my P85, I can get just about anywhere I want to go, and back, on a full charge. If I want to go further, there's a supercharger along the way. My current car has a gas range of about 400 miles. It would take me a little longer to get there, but I could duplicate that range fairly easily and at much lower cost. I would hope that Supercharging is a priority. For me, they just opened an SC in Ocala, so I could make it to Gainesville without a worry. The Plantation SC is operational, which makes things good going south. There is apparently a planned SC for Naples, which would come in handy as SW Florida coverage is sparse. I'm excited to get my car. As excited as I was when I got my first Euro sport sedan, an Audi 4000.

I doubt you'll see a Tesla Supercharger in Naples, FL when one already exists 30 miles north in Ft. Myers, FL. Also no mention of a Naples, FL supercharger on the Tesla Supercharger future sites map @ Tesla.com.

 

[Chopr147]

Now that 100kWh S is in production, time for some reflection. Tesla introduced the 85kWh in 2012 and it took 4 years to get to 100kWh.

A 15 kWh increase over 4 years. Or about 4% a year. Even Nissan and BMW were able to increase from 24 to 30 over the same period or about 6% a year.

A bit disappointing isn't it ?

Agreed from a cost perspective Tesla has made amazing strides, more than what was predicted. In 2011 we were told getting the price down to less than $100/kWh is more than 10-15 years away but now we know Tesla will get there in 5 or 6 years thanks to Gigafactory.

But from an energy density perspective the progress is a bit underwhelming.

Wow! Tough crowd

 

[bak_phy]

It has everything to do with cost and weight. If not you could just put 2 batteries in the car to get 200kWh. I seem to remember seeing some years ago that Tesla didn't want to make the batteries have much greater range since at some point the utility drops off drastically. There's no point in carrying around a 200kWh battery all the time which would require 20 hours to charge at home when you really only need 90kWh. Better to concentrate on weight, charge speed and cost.
Given that I can now buy a brand new 100kWh battery for my car for $20k (+ my old battery) I'd say that they must be getting somewhere on at least the cost part.

 

[SteelGrey]

I doubt you'll see a Tesla Supercharger in Naples, FL when one already exists 30 miles north in Ft. Myers, FL. Also no mention of a Naples, FL supercharger on the Tesla Supercharger future sites map @ Tesla.com.

Tesla has applied for a permit to build a Supercharger in Naples (499 Bayfront Place) per supercharge.info

 

[jelloslug]

I doubt you'll see a Tesla Supercharger in Naples, FL when one already exists 30 miles north in Ft. Myers, FL. Also no mention of a Naples, FL supercharger on the Tesla Supercharger future sites map @ Tesla.com.

There is already a permit pulled for the Naples Supercharger location.

 

[Alex D]

I doubt you'll see a Tesla Supercharger in Naples, FL when one already exists 30 miles north in Ft. Myers, FL. Also no mention of a Naples, FL supercharger on the Tesla Supercharger future sites map @ Tesla.com.

They already have the permit in place to build a SC in Naples. Check supercharge.info.

EDIT: LOL... never mind. Others were faster

 

[-=buzz=-]

If you repeat this calculation in about a year, when the 21-70 cells provide ~7.5% more capacity due to the additional height, and maybe another 5% due to chemistry, you'll be looking at a 115KWh pack which is a 6% per year improvement. An increase of 50% over your numbers!
So the result of this calculation is highly dependent on timing.

I think now that Tesla has reached the magic 100 KWh and 300 miles, they'll put more priority on cost reduction for the battery pack