Battery is big disappointment

[transpondster]

Yes, I suspect the reason the 100L seems to fall back towards the end of the race is because of software throttling as the cells have reached their thermal limit.

This issue will probably go away when we get a 150L, where 3.9C will have the same effect as 5.8C (minus the extra battery weight). Or if they use a high-power (resulting in low energy) chemistry.

actually its other way if Tesla produced P85DL with power tailored 18650 cells like Samsung 18650-30Q, but almost nobody would buy Models S which have 20% less range to get some decrease in 0-60 time

 

[TexasEV]

When the S first came out it was a $10,000 price difference between the 60 (208 miles range) and the 85 (265 mikes range).

 

[electracity]

At least for now when discussing range Tesla seems more inclined to follow the KISS principle. They're probably looking to avoid TMI to a general public that's more familiar with terms like horsepower or mpg.

I think Tesla dropped kWh because the S/X compare unfavorably.

 

[eloder]

Why is 5 miles more than the first advertised number disappointing? :|

 

[electracity]

I don't believe we know that (or anything else) about the new cells yet.

Sure we do. Acceleration and charge rate are superior in the bigger pack. The limiting variable is C rate.

 

[Vitold]

I think Model 3 220 will meet the faith of S40. Why 220 is not enough when S60 was fine? Being more energy efficient Model 3 has smaller battery (50kW) while AC and heating demands remain the same, plus cold temperatures would lower range more.

If you are planning on using air conditioning or winters have snow - you need bigger battery than Model 3 220.

 

[R.S]

I think Model 3 220 will meet the faith of S40. Why 220 is not enough when S60 was fine? Being more energy efficient Model 3 has smaller battery (50kW) while AC and heating demands remain the same, plus cold temperatures would lower range more.

If you are planning on using air conditioning or winters have snow - you need bigger battery than Model 3 220.

IDK the car basically starts at 40k right now, they will keep the base around just to have a low starting price.

BTW Model 3 220 sounds good! So from now on it's the 3 220 and the 3 310, just like with the Mercedes C 300.

 

[kort677]

I think Model 3 220 will meet the faith of S40. Why 220 is not enough when S60 was fine? Being more energy efficient Model 3 has smaller battery (50kW) while AC and heating demands remain the same, plus cold temperatures would lower range more.

If you are planning on using air conditioning or winters have snow - you need bigger battery than Model 3 220.

the hit on the range using the A/C is minimal. not even worth mentioning

 

[TexasEV]

I think Tesla dropped kWh because the S/X compare unfavorably.

No, I think it's to make an EV less intimidating for mainstream buyers. This process has been ongoing with the S, starting with changing the big range meter on the IC to a smaller one in the corner, removing separate amps and volts info from the supercharging screen, maybe someone can think of other changes.

 

[RDoc]

The range killers are cold weather, heavy rain or sleet, and headwinds. If you get all three together (we have a couple of times) the car may only get 75% of its normal range or even less.

 

[crouch]

For the 220, what would real world range probably be in winter months in the northeast assuming mostly 75-80 mph on highway?

If my daily commute is about 100 miles round trip (with no charger available at work), do I almost certainly need the 310?

 

[TexasEV]

I think Model 3 220 will meet the faith of S40. Why 220 is not enough when S60 was fine? Being more energy efficient Model 3 has smaller battery (50kW) while AC and heating demands remain the same, plus cold temperatures would lower range more.

If you are planning on using air conditioning or winters have snow - you need bigger battery than Model 3 220.

The S40 had a range well under 200 miles. The Model 3 with 220 mile range has greater range than my original S 60 with 208 miles range. I have no problem using air conditioning, and I'm in Texas.

 

[TexasEV]

For the 220, what would real world range probably be in winter months in the northeast assuming mostly 75-80 mph on highway?

If my daily commute is about 100 miles round trip (with no charger available at work), do I almost certainly need the 310?

No

 

[trils0n]

Not sure what folks were expecting if they are disappointed.

Tesla promised 215 miles range, with <6sec 0-60. People lined up in droves and were excited.
Tesla delivered 220 miles range, with 5.6sec 0-60. And now the complaining starts? Get a grip folks.

For the 220, what would real world range probably be in winter months in the northeast assuming mostly 75-80 mph on highway?

If my daily commute is about 100 miles round trip (with no charger available at work), do I almost certainly need the 310?

100 mile round trip would be fine any weather and (legal speed) with 220.

 

[cdub]

I would gladly trade the "pretty" rims for the "ugly" rims. I wonder how many more miles the larger battery would get when combined with the smaller aero wheels.

Yes I actually like the aero wheels alot when paired with white or midnight silver or even black.

I want the extra range over looks. Besides I think aeros look nice.

 

[jgillispie]

For the 220, what would real world range probably be in winter months in the northeast assuming mostly 75-80 mph on highway?

If my daily commute is about 100 miles round trip (with no charger available at work), do I almost certainly need the 310?

I'm guessing 125ish miles. Here's my example:
Aurora, IL supercharger to Davenport, IA supercharger is 128 miles. A new S75D driving into a heavy rainstorm at ~40 degrees arrived with 9% battery after a full charge. Speed was averaging ~65.

Take away the hit for the rain but add in colder temps and higher speeds should be similar. 50-60% of your rated miles.

 

[alseTrick]

Its not even noticeable on my Model S.

I'm using Tesla's own range calculator.

 

[electracity]

For the 220, what would real world range probably be in winter months in the northeast assuming mostly 75-80 mph on highway?

If my daily commute is about 100 miles round trip (with no charger available at work), do I almost certainly need the 310?

For a 100 mile commute you would want the 310 to reduce battery degradation and to ensure no need to charge during the day. Remember that the average Tesla experiences the equivalent of one battery cycle per week. Change that to 10-11 times per week and you enter a risky area of long term battery health.

 

[kort677]

For the 220, what would real world range probably be in winter months in the northeast assuming mostly 75-80 mph on highway?

If my daily commute is about 100 miles round trip (with no charger available at work), do I almost certainly need the 310?

if you want to preserve range, slow down! 75-80 will eat 20% of your range than if you keep it below 75mph.

 

[scaesare]

Sure we do. Acceleration and charge rate are superior in the bigger pack. The limiting variable is C rate.

The issue you were referring to was what was limiting the 0-60 times. While it's a reasonable guess it may be the cells, we don't know that. It could be other driveline units, or even programming for all we know.

While there is indeed a comparative difference between the large and small packs, that doesn't mean the cells are confirmed to be the limiting factor in either.

Witness the Model S where cars of all sizes have received performance upgrades in the past via programming alone.