Arguments for the 160 mile S (if you’re not a millionaire of course)

[WhiteKnight]

Then I sat in the demo car at Santana Row. That did it, I wanted EVERYTHING!
So, now I am going for the 85kWh pack, not fully loaded, but almost.

Every option available on the 85 kWh model is available on the 40 kWh except sport performance (which requires the 85 kWh). Now if you really like the Signature Red / White perforated leather / etc then that can only be found on a Signature and not on an 85 kWh standard production car.

So, generally, deciding on Model S is a two step process:
(1) How much range do I want / need?
(2) What options do I want?

I particularly like the fact that even though I only want the 40 kWh I can still get a car identical in almost all respects (with every option) to the 85 kWh model (with the smaller battery of course).

P.S. Lest someone else correct me, you cannot get Supercharging on the 40 kWh - something I don't want anyway.

 

[Robert.Boston]

@WhiteKnight: a further nit, which I'll fix before people blow up over it:

The battery size does influence the 0-60 acceleration, so your step 1:

(1) How much range do I want / need?

Has a "loop back":

(1) How much range do I want / need?
(1a) Does this battery provide the acceleration I want? If yes, go to (2); if no, go to (1)

 

[WhiteKnight]

@WhiteKnight: a further nit, which I'll fix before people blow up over it:

Thank you!

 

[Waverider]

When I sit back and read the arguments for the 160-mile version, it all makes sense to the logical part of my brain. I definitely fit into the "99% daily commute of 20 miles" demographic. However it's a massive mental leap for me (and more importantly my wife) to spend that much money on a vehicle with that major a limitation. I've bought a $50k vehicle before, but it is superior in every way to the one it replaced. Maybe if I was slightly more well-off it would be a no-brainer to get the 160 S but I just can't make the jump.

 

[dsm363]

When I sit back and read the arguments for the 160-mile version, it all makes sense to the logical part of my brain. I definitely fit into the "99% daily commute of 20 miles" demographic. However it's a massive mental leap for me (and more importantly my wife) to spend that much money on a vehicle with that major a limitation. I've bought a $50k vehicle before, but it is superior in every way to the one it replaced. Maybe if I was slightly more well-off it would be a no-brainer to get the 160 S but I just can't make the jump.

I think a lot of people are in this boat. If you have an ICE car that you can keep around for those rare trips, I think you'd still be pretty happy. There are a number of Leaf drivers who love their cars and that has about 30-40% less range that the 40 kWh Model S.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

According to this TSLA-bashing article (Energy Storage: 4 Breakout Stocks And A Short Circuit - Seeking Alpha), one'd have to be "MAD" to go for the 40 kWh pack! :smile:

Compared to a CAFE compliant conventional vehicle, the Model S will save the average driver 400 gallons of gas per year, or 4,000 gallons over the course of a decade. To accomplish this wondrous feat, the base model for Alfred E. Newman types who are happy with a 160 mile range comes with a 40 kWh battery pack that costs $20,000 and represents an up-front investment of $5.00 for every gallon of lifetime fuel savings. For the more paranoid Jerry Seinfeld types who want a 230 mile range, Tesla offers 60 kWh battery pack that costs $30,000 and represents an up-front investment of $7.50 for every gallon of lifetime fuel savings. For the high anxiety Mel Brooks types who want a 300 mile range, Tesla offers a whopping 85 kWh battery pack that costs $42,500 and represents an up-front investment of $10.63 for every gallon of lifetime fuel savings.

 

[EVNow]

However it's a massive mental leap for me (and more importantly my wife) to spend that much money on a vehicle with that major a limitation. I've bought a $50k vehicle before, but it is superior in every way to the one it replaced.

Same reason I can't buy this as an upgrade to Leaf, if it can't do CHAdeMO.

But going from ICE to EV will always involve reduction of range and increase of refuel time. Even tata nano beats EVs. It's a disruptive technology where everything won't be better.

 

[jimbakker666]

According to this TSLA-bashing article (Energy Storage: 4 Breakout Stocks And A Short Circuit - Seeking Alpha), one'd have to be "MAD" to go for the 40 kWh pack! :smile:

They'd have to be mad I tell you, MAD!

Is it me or is every Tesla-related 'article' published through Seeking Alpha a hit piece? How anyone takes their stuff seriously is beyond me.

 

[Cobos]

They'd have to be mad I tell you, MAD!

Is it me or is every Tesla-related 'article' published through Seeking Alpha a hit piece? How anyone takes their stuff seriously is beyond me.

Anything from John Petersen is a hit piece against Tesla. Most of the other writers seem pretty enthusiastic about Tesla. I personally just can't take John Petersen seriously the way he tries to boost Axion Power. They sell lead acid batteries for chrissakes, yes with a slightly advanced twist, but they are still HEAVY and extremely toxic. They claim they would be good for mobile applications , they can't have read the memo saying car manufacturers try everything to reduce weight.
I can see the use for stationary application if the price is suitably low, but NiMH handles hybrids nicely and every EV now uses Li-ion. Even the salt-based battery Think used is better than Lead for some applications.

Cobos

 

[Bearman]

"Model S will save the average driver 400 gallons of gas per year"
where does the 400 number come from also the 40kwh, 20k battery cost?

 

[Robert.Boston]

"Model S will save the average driver 400 gallons of gas per year"
where does the 400 number come from also the 40kwh, 20k battery cost?

The 40kWh = $20k is entirely consistent with the upgrade cost from the 40kWh battery to the 60kWh, e.g. $500/kWh.

400 gallons/year is accurate, but takes some calculation to prove up. According to the US DOT, the average American drives 13,476 miles/year. The average new passenger car got 33.7 mpg, though it's worth noting that the average of all light duty vehicles in the last year reported (1999) was 6.9 mpg below the car figure, so we'll also keep 26.8 mpg as a relevant benchmark.

That would suggest that the average driver in an average new car would use 399.88 = 400 gallons per year, as required. The average vehicle, however, would use 503 gallons.

 

[VolkerP]

Model S surely is no replacement for the average car. Petersen should pick a mpg number for a vehicle class in the premium sedan or van/family hauler segment. I guess that this way one arrives north of 400 gallons/year but still sub 500.

 

[Robert.Boston]

btw, another way to get an useful number: annual average motor gasoline consumption in the US is 8,996,521 barrels/day, e.g. 137.917 billion gallons/year. (gulp) There are approximately 260 million passenger vehicles in the US, for an average of 530 gallons/vehicle.

Or to VolkerP's point, if the average mileage of a premium vehicle is 22.5/mpg, then average consumption is 600 gallons/year.

 

[Trnsl8r]

"Model S will save the average driver 400 gallons of gas per year"
where does the 400 number come from also the 40kwh, 20k battery cost?

I guess they're assuming that
a) $20k of the $57k price (35%) goes to paying for the battery.
b) combustion engines are free of charge.

:smile:

 

[Bearman]

Thank you for the clarification Robert. I got a 521 gallon/year number from Bureau of Transportation Statistics[1] for passenger car fuel consumption (2008 latest number) when trying to find the 400 number.

[1] RITA | BTS | Table 4-11: Passenger Car and Motorcycle Fuel Consumption and Travel

 

[Robert.Boston]

Thank you for the clarification Robert. I got a 521 gallon/year number from Bureau of Transportation Statistics[1] for passenger car fuel consumption (2008 latest number) when trying to find the 400 number.

[1] RITA | BTS | Table 4-11: Passenger Car and Motorcycle Fuel Consumption and Travel

Great -- we'll call my 530 and the DoT's 521 the same for practical purposes!

 

[WhiteKnight]

Is it me or is every Tesla-related 'article' published through Seeking Alpha a hit piece? How anyone takes their stuff seriously is beyond me.

Seeking Alpha is a random collection of bloggers. It takes very little to become a Seeking Alpha blogger. Their business strategy is simply to get eyeballs for advertising dollars.

 

[WhiteKnight]

According to this TSLA-bashing article (Energy Storage: 4 Breakout Stocks And A Short Circuit - Seeking Alpha), one'd have to be "MAD" to go for the 40 kWh pack! :smile:

This "analysis" is wrong on so many levels.

(1) He assumes that the Model S battery has no value at the end of 10 years
(2) He assumes that after 10 years and 134,800 miles that an ICE powertrain retains 100% of its value
(3) He assumes that everything in the Model S sans battery can be had for $37,400

Shall I go on?

 

[jcstp]

If people doubt if a 160 mile model S will be sifficient, I guess this app could help decide!


iEV app

 

[neroden]

OK, this is how I figured it:
(1) If I'm going to keep an ICE car and am happy to use it for longer trips (perhaps this depends on how frequent those trips are), definitely get the 160.
(2) If car rental is easy and I'm happy to do that for longer trips (perhaps this depends on how frequent those trips are), definitely get the 160.
(3) If I am happy to take airplanes, or trains, or buses, or whatever for longer trips, definitely get the 160.
(3) If I expect a sufficient level 2 charging network accessible to the 160 to be widely distributed around my area by the time I get my car, or am able to cause such a network to be created, get the 160. (The charging network makes the effective range much better.)

My longer-than-160-mile round trips are a minimum of monthly, I don't want to use my ICE for them, rentals are annoying and inconvenient for me, there's no suitable air/train/bus service, and I'm in a charging wasteland. Result is clear for me. Result will be different for other people. In particular, people who are happy to keep driving an ICE for longer trips, living next to a rental car place, with frequent air, train, and bus service, level 2 charging at their workplace, and a large 220 volt public charge point network, probably won't want a large battery! (And may be happy with a Nissan Leaf, actually.)

Your range needs are determined by your location and driving pattern. I actually concluded that I only *need* 230 mile range, but I would use the 300 mile range if I had it, and I figure it means I'll retain 230 mile range for longer. This car is so expensive I plan to keep it until it's unrepairable.