Business Case for Better Range

[chickensevil]

So for the record, if it was 300 real miles, no, I wouldn't have a problem with that range. That would likely be sufficient since that seems to be a common sedan range. But it isn't 300 real miles.. It isn't even close. So take a common trip for many people, "visit family", my family lives 368 miles away, and I try to make the trip AT LEAST twice a year. One problem... There is a mountain range between Ohio and Virginia... Combine that with an average speed of around 65-70 and I do not at all expect to get more than 150 IF I range charge and I am lucky. I am actually going to NEED both superchargers along the rather short route. Add in cold, and I might be a title worried (FYI Cumberland MD, anytime it snows, they get A LOT of snow because of the elevations through there).

I doubt I am a special case, my current car consistently gets 300 miles city driving, and actually gets more like 325-350 on the highway. Cold, rain, heat, snow... All about the same for me, thank you Honda. My trip I am more than happy for my one stop along the way to fill up, get a bite to eat, and continue on my way... This one stop will now become 2, and that annoys me.

my real world case actually highlights what I think would be a pretty common issue. I am not at all advocating for 1000 miles for the one or two people who would rather pee in a cup than to pull over and stop. I am just asking for a solid 3 hour leg between each stop. I won't get that with those conditions.

Tesla's target range should be with a little bit of spirited driving, using full regen, while driving 80MPH, going over your average mountains, in just about any reasonable temp range (say 15 degrees up to 90), and get 300 miles out of it. Then you have fixed the 99% of range issues. Leaving out only the crazy people who refuse to do a road trip unless they can drive without any stops for 1000 miles. I don't think it is too much to ask for them to give us a REAL 300 miles.

 

[kcveins]

So for the record, if it was 300 real miles, no, I wouldn't have a problem with that range. That would likely be sufficient since that seems to be a common sedan range. But it isn't 300 real miles.. It isn't even close. So take a common trip for many people, "visit family", my family lives 368 miles away, and I try to make the trip AT LEAST twice a year. One problem... There is a mountain range between Ohio and Virginia... Combine that with an average speed of around 65-70 and I do not at all expect to get more than 150 IF I range charge and I am lucky. I am actually going to NEED both superchargers along the rather short route. Add in cold, and I might be a title worried (FYI Cumberland MD, anytime it snows, they get A LOT of snow because of the elevations through there).

I doubt I am a special case, my current car consistently gets 300 miles city driving, and actually gets more like 325-350 on the highway. Cold, rain, heat, snow... All about the same for me, thank you Honda. My trip I am more than happy for my one stop along the way to fill up, get a bite to eat, and continue on my way... This one stop will now become 2, and that annoys me.

my real world case actually highlights what I think would be a pretty common issue. I am not at all advocating for 1000 miles for the one or two people who would rather pee in a cup than to pull over and stop. I am just asking for a solid 3 hour leg between each stop. I won't get that with those conditions.

Tesla's target range should be with a little bit of spirited driving, using full regen, while driving 80MPH, going over your average mountains, in just about any reasonable temp range (say 15 degrees up to 90), and get 300 miles out of it. Then you have fixed the 99% of range issues. Leaving out only the crazy people who refuse to do a road trip unless they can drive without any stops for 1000 miles. I don't think it is too much to ask for them to give us a REAL 300 miles.

This.

My in-laws live in Detroit; 288 miles door to door from us. We have friends in Louisville and St. Louis (about 300 miles each way). These are usually a 4-4.5 hour drives that we do multiple times a year. This is the typical range that I would expect to have without having to stop and charge. Not to say that I don't love the 18,000+ gas free miles so far :smile:

 

[VolkerP]

You would spend $10k on a bigger battery to save 2x2 supercharger stops a year. This clearly shows that we are at the point of diminishing returns here. A battery swap station would provide you that service at a far lower price. And you don't have to get out of the vehicle.

 

[FANGO]

Q4 2013 results - data points, projections and expectations

You would spend $10k on a bigger battery to save 2x2 supercharger stops a year. This clearly shows that we are at the point of diminishing returns here. Tesla's mission is to go for the millions of miles driven everyday on legs of less than 100 miles.

Dingdingding. The other side of the equation is which manufacturers will make a car which costs 10k more, and the resulting drop in demand due to higher price, in order to save people these 2x2 stops. There will be niches for this but it makes no sense for the mass market. People don't have an extra 10k to spend to save them an hour a year. Well, unless they invested early in tesla

 

[InTheShadows]

You would spend $10k on a bigger battery to save 2x2 supercharger stops a year. This clearly shows that we are at the point of diminishing returns here. A battery swap station would provide you that service at a far lower price. And you don't have to get out of the vehicle.

That's not the issue in my case. In my case I have round trip needs through mountainous regions that don't even have cell service on highways that go 75-80 mph (120-130kph). There are not even gas stations in these areas, it is extremely unlikely that there will be superchargers.

I am in sales and we have a strong customer base in this region and I am not about to ask a potential customer "Would it be ok if I run a drag cord to your dryer outlet so I can charge my electric car during our 1 hour meeting? I need the extra 18 miles of range to get home." When I do these trips I like to schedule 2-3 meetings in the region which can be 20 minutes apart in travel time them selves.

I have no problem asking that at relatives homes, but not a customer.

Our 150 mile by 300 mile state has 1 supercharger right now. 5 total on the 2015 map and none are even close to this region. And right now battery swap is a pie in the sky unless you are the 1% that live on the California coast.

 

[chickensevil]

You would spend $10k on a bigger battery to save 2x2 supercharger stops a year. This clearly shows that we are at the point of diminishing returns here. A battery swap station would provide you that service at a far lower price. And you don't have to get out of the vehicle.

To clarify I never suggested I would pay an extra 10k overtop of the current 85 price. I was merely suggesting when the cost of the battery gets lower than they could easily ditch the bottom model and shift the cost down. So 85s would run you 60k and a 110(or whatever) would run you 70k. If I was willing to pay 70k for the base 85 why wouldn't I be willing to pay the same for a larger battery?

I also wasn't suggesting that would be my only longer trip of the year, was just using it as an example. This is also more something I expect to happen in that 4-5 year timeframe maybe a little sooner, vice something I would demand or expect from them today/this year.

 

[JRP3]

JRP -- do you know of any source or Elon discussion around expected increases in density? I've seen lots on the cost aspect, but can't find anything about density. I'm trying to figure a reasonable timeframe for a 20% increase in energy density vs current model S pack

Generally density increases between 5-8% per year, though it's not necessarily linear. Elon has mentioned this in the past. So three years from now it's reasonable to expect around a 20% improvement.

- - - Updated - - -

Dingdingding. The other side of the equation is which manufacturers will make a car which costs 10k more, and the resulting drop in demand due to higher price, in order to save people these 2x2 stops. There will be niches for this but it makes no sense for the mass market. People don't have an extra 10k to spend to save them an hour a year. Well, unless they invested early in tesla

Which part of "cheaper batteries" are you not understanding?

 

[The Blue Owl]

I would also like a larger battery, and I think they will come as costs trend down. The car will cost the same, but will have longer range. Apple was extremely successful keeping its position at the high end of the market for a long time following this recipe.

The fact that Tesla was first to produce an electric car with range approaching that of ICEs was a very important threshold. It made a lot of people say "I don't need to compromise." But you still need to compromise in some edge cases (hills, extreme cold, etc.) If Tesla can sell a car with 500 miles range, higher than most ICEs, it would clear another threshold, even more important than the first. It would be game over: electric would suddenly be obviously superior in ALL areas. I wouldn't want to be GM when that happens.

 

[FANGO]

Generally density increases between 5-8% per year, though it's not necessarily linear. Elon has mentioned this in the past. So three years from now it's reasonable to expect around a 20% improvement.

- - - Updated - - -


Which part of "cheaper batteries" are you not understanding?

It will never be cheaper to put more batteries in a car. The smaller battery will always be cheaper than the larger one. So fine, we go 15+ years down the line, and a similar step up in battery to what we have now only costs 2500 dollars (inflation adjusted to 2014 dollars, assuming near-10% battery improvement per year). That's still a lot of money for something most people will use twice a year. And that's 15 years away. And there are Superchargers everywhere by then. And development costs to building such a niche car. Etc etc etc. It's a heck of a lot more significant and costly than putting a huge gas tank in a car, and notice that cars don't have huge gas tanks, there isn't an arms race for which car has the largest gas tank, even though it would be very easy for manufacturers to do this. There is a natural equilibrium and few vehicles stray outside of it.

And every public statement I've heard from any manufacturer suggests that batteries won't keep getting bigger forever. That includes Elon and JB. DaveT's link above seems more like a transcription error than anything to me (it's a summary from a forum member, not audio or even a transcript) and I would want to hear it for myself because I heard JB say the opposite about a month before that (he said he could only ever see cars hitting the 300-400 range maximum at the Cleantech investor's conference in feb 2013, and that is what I'm basing the things I've been saying on), and why I've been saying I could see them migrating a larger X or future "truck" battery to the S at some point in a super-sport style configuration but not continual increases in range. It won't be "like Apple" where they just double the storage in the battery every few years continually. The world is getting more data, but the world is not getting larger. In fact, the world is getting smaller. Continually increasing ranges make no sense. The focus will be fast charging.

And, as an EV advocate and person with lungs which like to breathe air who wants to get electric cars on the road NOW instead of 20 years from now, I believe talk of continually increasing ranges is dangerous, and all it does is satisfy the luddites who think the technology is not mature. It is, and it has been for some time. Tiny edge cases are irrelevant, as every product has an edge case, and the focus even we put on these edge cases seems counterproductive. Tesla will continue to work on expanding the car to be suitable for more people, but they will do so primarily through quick charging and there will be some people the car is not suitable for and that's totally fine. We are Osborning ourself every time we talk about 500 mile ranges which will never happen. But that's not why I think range won't continually increase (many of the reasons for that prediction are listed above), it's just why I say it a lot.

 

[DaveT]

DaveT's link above seems more like a transcription error than anything to me (it's a summary from a forum member, not audio or even a transcript) and I would want to hear it for myself because I heard JB say the opposite about a month before that (he said he could only ever see cars hitting the 300-400 range maximum at the Cleantech investor's conference in feb 2013, and that is what I'm basing the things I've been saying on)...

Actually I listened to the call at the time it happened (April 26) and the transcript link I provided was accurate. I provided the transcript link (even though it was from an amateur/forum post) to make it easier for you to parse the info. But I would highly suggest you listening to the conference call yourself and find the place where Elon mentions a possible 500 mile battery. I think it might change your mind.

Tesla - Events Presentations

 

[The Blue Owl]

It won't be "like Apple" where they just double the storage in the battery every few years continually. The world is getting more data, but the world is not getting larger.

I didn't say, nor imply, that battery storage will double every few years, nevermind "continually". I made the point that lower costs per kWh are to be expected (as per Tesla), and that it would make sense to increase battery capacity and keep the prices stable to preserve their margins, while forcing the competition to sell at the lower end, squeezing their margins. That's where I see the Apple analogy relevant, not in the rate of capacity increase.

On the subject of tiny edge cases, we'll have to agree to disagree. Even though it wouldn't keep me from buying the car, the real-life range of ~200 miles in the cold or when driving in the mountains is not that insignificant of an issue to me. I actually care less about shorter charging times than I do about a longer range. It's true that there will always be some people for which the car won't be suitable, and that edge cases shouldn't drive product development. However, it's also true that range is the primary criterion by which electric cars are compared with ICEs and other electrics. I am absolutely convinced that a significant increase in range would lead to a second major shift in perception for the people now sitting on the fence. We on this board are far from being representative for the general population; indeed, range continues to be the objection I hear most often when I evangelize the car.

I know that demand is not an issue today, and I agree that the existing range is more than adequate for most purposes. But I would love to see it (especially if it comes "for free" as a result of the GF and the expected incremental advances) because it would instantaneously pull the floor from under ICE manufacturers. The day Tesla sells a 500-mile car is the day GM and VW suddenly become coyotes looking down.

 

[FANGO]

Actually I listened to the call at the time it happened (April 26) and the transcript link I provided was accurate. I provided the transcript link (even though it was from an amateur/forum post) to make it easier for you to parse the info. But I would highly suggest you listening to the conference call yourself and find the place where Elon mentions a possible 500 mile battery. I think it might change your mind.

Tesla - Events Presentations

Thank you for the link.

I listened to that part while reading the transcript just now, the transcript definitely paints it much more as a certainty than the comments did - there was a hint of mischief when he talked about 500, and "could" rather than "will", etc. Considering statements since then, where Elon and JB have both talked about the focus being on reducing weight and cost rather than increasing range, I still think it *should* be the way I've laid out, and still think it most likely will, but the mention of him "liking upgrades" is interesting to me (particularly in terms of Roadster ownership, though I very much hope that upgrade comes with a decrease in weight instead of an increase in range). That is the first comment I've heard from Elon which has suggested in any reasonably certain terms that a ridiculously-sized battery might ever come, to me, as all the others I have read as "yes, we could, but it would be a horrible idea" or something of the sort.

I still do not see this as a realistic goal and I think that most people who think they want this will be disappointed, because even if it does come, it will not come soon. A doubling of range in 2016 for example (4 years after S release) is completely unrealistic.



Rhino, I like your post and think everything you've said is generally reasonable but just wanted to point out this part.

I am absolutely convinced that a significant increase in range would lead to a second major shift in perception for the people now sitting on the fence. We on this board are far from being representative for the general population; indeed, range continues to be the objection I hear most often when I evangelize the car.

But that already happened, with the Model S. How many more times will it need to happen? How much bigger does a battery need to be than a gas tank? It's already the same size as a gas tank, 500 would be a bit under 2x the size of a gas tank. Would we still hear people saying the same thing when (if) it hits 500? I think we would.

The progress won't happen in terms of the car's abilities, it will happen in terms of the minds of the consumer. This happens with every adoption curve. People get more comfortable over time. This is why Tesla isn't selling 300k cars now, it would be unrealistic to expect your full production ramp on your first day. They're getting people comfortable with the idea. Promising huge ranges in the future is just going to keep people uncomfortable with the idea, and keep them looking towards the future, instead of the present, which is why I think this is counterproductive.

 

[DaveT]

I listened to that part while reading the transcript just now, the transcript definitely paints it much more as a certainty than the comments did - there was a hint of mischief when he talked about 500, and "could" rather than "will", etc. Considering statements since then, where Elon and JB have both talked about the focus being on reducing weight and cost rather than increasing range, I still think it *should* be the way I've laid out, and still think it most likely will, but the mention of him "liking upgrades" is interesting to me (particularly in terms of Roadster ownership, though I very much hope that upgrade comes with a decrease in weight instead of an increase in range). That is the first comment I've heard from Elon which has suggested in any reasonably certain terms that a ridiculously-sized battery might ever come, to me, as all the others I have read as "yes, we could, but it would be a horrible idea" or something of the sort.

I still do not see this as a realistic goal and I think that most people who think they want this will be disappointed, because even if it does come, it will not come soon. A doubling of range in 2016 for example (4 years after S release) is completely unrealistic.

I agree a doubling of range in 2016-2017 is not going to happen. But given Elon's comment on the possibility of a 500 mile range battery, I don't think we should count that out in the long-term (8-13 years out)... especially considering he's the boss.

 

[c041v]

The only reason I can see for a 500 mile battery is to prevent clogging of Superchargers. At some point (maybe Gen III era) there are going to be a lot of Teslas driving around and Superchargers will not be infinitely expanding. Even then, this is more of an "if then" issue.

 

[The Blue Owl]

Rhino, I like your post and think everything you've said is generally reasonable but just wanted to point out this part.

But that already happened, with the Model S. How many more times will it need to happen? How much bigger does a battery need to be than a gas tank? It's already the same size as a gas tank, 500 would be a bit under 2x the size of a gas tank. Would we still hear people saying the same thing when (if) it hits 500? I think we would.

I completely agree that a major shift in perception already happened. That's why I wrote about a second one.

Yes, there will always be the John Petersens and the Fox News Car Coaches bitching about the car, even if it can do 1000 miles on a charge, if only because Tesla once took a loan from the Government. But I wasn't thinking about them. I am simply positing that the average consumer responds to (arguably) silly performance factors, even if they don't really need them, and that in the minds of many of those consumers, ICEs are still better because "range". Once that objection is not only sort-of-removed, but completely obliterated, there will be nothing left to keep them from making the jump (and they, in fact, will be more inclined to accept the mild compromise of a longer refuelling time compared to ICEs.) The thing is, people don't like to have to change their habits, even if what they're offered is better, because they can't imagine that change until they live it. And if/when such a (second) perception shift happens, it will be epic.

Anyway, the more I write about it, the more I agree that it's more like a nice-to-have, and the education of the market will happen anyway, as you described. But I still hope for a longer range, for myself, and for the other reasons I mentioned. Especially since I think it can happen as a side-effect of the roadmap they're on already (although I may be wrong about that.)

Promising huge ranges in the future is just going to keep people uncomfortable with the idea, and keep them looking towards the future, instead of the present, which is why I think this is counterproductive.

Of course. I'm not suggesting that anyone should make such promises.

 

[chickensevil]

But that already happened, with the Model S. How many more times will it need to happen? How much bigger does a battery need to be than a gas tank? It's already the same size as a gas tank, 500 would be a bit under 2x the size of a gas tank. Would we still hear people saying the same thing when (if) it hits 500? I think we would.

The progress won't happen in terms of the car's abilities, it will happen in terms of the minds of the consumer. This happens with every adoption curve. People get more comfortable over time. This is why Tesla isn't selling 300k cars now, it would be unrealistic to expect your full production ramp on your first day. They're getting people comfortable with the idea. Promising huge ranges in the future is just going to keep people uncomfortable with the idea, and keep them looking towards the future, instead of the present, which is why I think this is counterproductive.

We tell people it has already happened in order to get them on board with the car. I will never tell someone that I would only actually get a range of X in my car... I am always touting the EPA 265. But this is flawed. As good as the car is, it is actually impacted much larger by things on it's range than gas is. And saying it is already the size of a gas tank, is also wrong.

For the Mercedes it is much higher than 300 I would say with spirited driving you could easily still expect to get well over 300 on a single tank, ESPECIALLY if road tripping, since those values are all well over 500.
2014 Mercedes-Benz S-Class S550 Sedan 4.7L V8 Twin-turbo 7-speed Automatic Features and Specs
S550 Range: 358.7/527.5
2014 Mercedes-Benz C-Class C250 Luxury Sedan 1.8L 4-cyl. Turbo 7-speed Automatic Features and Specs
C250 Luxury Range: 382.8/539.4
2014 Mercedes-Benz E-Class E350 Luxury Sedan 3.5L V6 7-speed Automatic Features and Specs
E350 Luxury Range: 443.1/633.0

BMW Pretty much in the same boat.
2014 BMW 7 Series 740i Sedan 3.0L 6-cyl. Turbo 8-speed Automatic Features and Specs
740i Range: 400.9/611.9
2014 BMW 5 Series 528i Sedan 2.0L 4-cyl. Turbo 8-speed Automatic Features and Specs
528i Range: 425.5/629.0
2014 BMW 3 Series 320i Sedan 2.0L 4-cyl. Turbo 8-speed Automatic Features and Specs
320i Range: 379.2/568.8

I could keep going through manufacturers, or you are welcome to fish through Edmunds yourself. 300 city miles (which is considered the worst range in a car) Tesla meets that level easily. But then totally flops when you get to 55MPH and above, due to the nature of it being 1 speed of a car. Again why I have advocated that some of these issues might be fixed if they can actually make a transmission that can go 2 speed, and make the optimal power burn around 60 MPH in that second speed. Then you don't need a bigger battery. But you can see, highway miles from the competition is well north of 300. This is the expected range when you drive on the highway. If you don't hit that mark people are going to continue to complain. Even when they get the recharge time down to under 5 minutes, the frequency of the stops is going to be greater than in an ICE, plain and simple. I choose to make 1 stop in my Civic doing my 368 mile trip, simply because it lets me get out and stretch for a minute and quickly use the bathroom, and I can't *quite* make the range without a little bit of gas (since I don't quite get 368 highway and would cause a bit of range anxiety... I ran out of fuel once before, not fun... so I avoid that...) But I am willing to bet, that I could make it if I tried.

Anyway, point is, 200 miles is no where near the "average" range... I would argue from a highway driving perspective 300 miles is a little on the low side, even. Which is really where you WANT the added range anyway!

 

[JRP3]

It will never be cheaper to put more batteries in a car. The smaller battery will always be cheaper than the larger one.

Your arguement is the equivalent of "No one needs a motor larger than 4 cylinders and anything larger will cost more and be heavier so they will never be offered." Obviously that is a false premise.

So fine, we go 15+ years down the line, and a similar step up in battery to what we have now only costs 2500 dollars (inflation adjusted to 2014 dollars, assuming near-10% battery improvement per year). That's still a lot of money for something most people will use twice a year.

See my previous example.

And that's 15 years away. And there are Superchargers everywhere by then. And development costs to building such a niche car.

Wrong again, since the increasing energy density and decreasing price means it's very easy to design such a vehicle. The number of SC's is not as much of an issue as being able to simply keep driving to your destination without having to stop, especially in mountainous terrain and inclement weather. I know you don't want to see it but the current available range is not enough for many people. If we really want EV's to completely take over ICE's they need to be offered with enough range to equal them. Now don't be mistaken, I'm not a range freak at all, I know that much range is rarely if ever needed by most people, but I also know that all those who are constantly trying to bash EV's and keep them from being successful harp on the range issue.

There is a natural equilibrium and few vehicles stray outside of it.

Right, and most of them have more range than the 85kWh S does, and can refuel much faster, at many more locations.

Continually increasing ranges make no sense. The focus will be fast charging.

No one said anything about continuously increasing range, just to the 400-500 mile range, and fast charging is always going to have issues with cabling, connecters, power delivery, and charge acceptance of the cell chemistry.

And, as an EV advocate and person with lungs which like to breathe air who wants to get electric cars on the road NOW instead of 20 years from now, I believe talk of continually increasing ranges is dangerous, and all it does is satisfy the luddites who think the technology is not mature.

Again, no one is talking about continuously increasing range, just increasing enough to compete head to head with ICE's, and therefore eliminate them faster. You can pretend that no one driving ICE's cares about range, or that you can simply educate them, but you'd be wrong. Most current Model S drivers who love their cars would also love more range. That's reality.

 

[FANGO]

Again, no one is talking about continuously increasing range, just increasing enough to compete head to head with ICE's

If what you want is range enough to compete head to head with ICEs, then congratulations, you have it already. 265 is smack in the middle of the average distance driveable on a tank of gas based on combined fuel economy of the cars in the same class as the Model S. That's why this range was picked. It's in the same ballpark as the equilibrium point of gas tanks. Which is not even necessary, but that's not part of my argument here. M3 goes 266 miles, CTS-V goes 252, ES 350 goes 407, M5 goes 241, S65 AMG goes 309, Bentley Continental goes 286, A6 goes 464. The main people making cars with huge tank sizes are VW and that's because they're doubling down on oil and refusing to go electric, and they think talking about range will hurt EVs.

There is a detailed chart which exists showing that the Model S is right in the middle of the pack, but I don't know where it is. Was generated by a Tesla owner.

 

[AudubonB]

Tiny edge cases are irrelevant, as every product has an edge case, and the focus even we put on these edge cases seems counterproductive. Tesla will continue to work on expanding the car to be suitable for more people, but they will do so primarily through quick charging and there will be some people the car is not suitable for and that's totally fine.

All right, let's try this on for size:

1. Tesla is utterly moronic to provide 21" rims and a suspension for same for its Model S, as the 19" version gives absolutely everyone more than enough performance for any possible situation (well, except for a few edge cases).

2. Tesla is utterly insane and, in fact, irresponsible, for setting the motor's governor at 130-133mph as that is about twice the speed that any responsible driver ever should drive (well, except for a few edge cases).

3. Tesla has burdened all owners unduly with having over-engineered the Model S to such an extent that its front and rear crash protection specs are, almost literally, off the charts. Very significant cost reductions are available there (well, except for a few edge...accidents).

Or...some posters really need to get out of California. There is an awful lot larger subset of North American vehicle users who use, on a consistent basis, a vehicle that can haul 6 to 10 tons of items - horses, boats, construction equipment - than who need to go 130mph. There is an awful lot larger subset of North American vehicle users who travel, on a consistent basis, far longer than 300 miles per hop than who need the extra zip of a P85+ and its 21" rims. A larger and, dare I say it, heavier battery pack goes a long way toward fulfilling that demand....and when Tesla is able to combine that in a real pickup-style vehicle....then GM & Ford & Chrysler will be hung out to dry.

 

[30seconds]

and a larger battery pack, lets say a 150kWh, should let you charge from 50m range to 250m range much faster than on the 85 pack.

in a lot of ways Tesla is playing the cost and density curves of battery improvements. Not just about increasing range, but lets say in 3-4 years we see a refreshed Model S. The same 85kWh pack may be ~two hundred pounds lighter resulting in a significant increase in performance. I think within 7-10 years we may be approaching weight parity with ICE when considering the entire powertrain vs a 85kWh electric powertrain.