Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Business Case for Better Range

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I meant to also say, but I forgot, that a longer range would also drive the final nail into the coffin of hybrid technology. Superior range is their main reason to exist, despite a much more complicated and expensive technology and reduced cargo space. I am willing to bet that most of those pretty sales numbers for the i3 in Germany are for the version with the range extender.
 
Last edited:
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.
Except 265 is not the average range of the Model S, and you can't refuel it in 5 minutes almost anywhere. Are you really trying to argue that the S in it's current form is the equal to an ICE in real world long distance driving at this point?
 
I'm riding in a friends Dodge Durango this weekend to go skiing in NY. There are no superchargers between me and the ski resort. There is one J1772 at the resort, it's a busy weekend and it will probably be iced. It's 125 miles one way for me. There are two 14-50 camp sites between me and the resort. One is snowed in. The other I didn't get an answer.

No plan B, the Durango it is. :(
 
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.

And that list is all sports/performance cars, and if I am not mistaken they are all coupes. The Tesla is more a family car than a sports/performance car, it just so happens to have the sports/performance capabilities (especially if you go with the P85). Which is why I was specifically mentioning models that would be considered your sedan/luxury/family type cars... which would be more likely to do your trips in. All of those that I have seen across all price ranges, has a performance level of greater than 300 miles (most greater than 400 and a few greater than 500) all without hitting diesel/hybrids (which go ever farther).

I appreciate the exuberance toward defending the range of the Tesla, but let's be real here, if you are treating your battery properly, you are not going to be going outside of the bound of 20-80% charge range very often, combine that with cold impact of around a 20% loss, and using the heater, and going 70 MPH, and you are just not going to hit anywhere close to 265. Again, outside of our community, I will adamately defend the range of the Tesla as being largely practical for you to replace your car entirely. Hell, just to prove a point I am ditching my old car entirely to jump on board that the car can be your one and only car. But here among us, I will have to disagree that the range is sufficient.
 
arguing against an 110kw or bigger battery pack is like saying there would be no demand for a ICE with 200 or more Horsepowers.

If its technically possible to offer an 110kw pack or 135kw pack, Then Tesla will do it.
I think people would even buy it if we live in an EV utopia, where there are fast chargers everywhere.
Imagine the torque of an Model S AWD P135+

Just as a comparison, The Mercedes Benz S-Class 65AMG hast 630 Horse Powers.
Its an complete overkill and far more useless then an 135kw or 200kw package.

As Elon and JB mentioned many times already, they see a Battery improvement of 8%/year
lets do some basic math

2012 - 85kw
2013 - 92kw
2014 - 99kw
2015 - 107kw
2016 - 116kw
2017 - 125kw
2018 - 135kw
2019 - 145kw
2020 - 157kw
2021 - 170kw
2022 - 183kw
2023 - 198kw
2024 - 214kw

of course this is oversimplified, at some point LiIon will hit a ceiling of kWh/kg but at around the same time new technologies could come to the market.
 
arguing against an 110kw or bigger battery pack is like saying there would be no demand for a ICE with 200 or more Horsepowers.

If its technically possible to offer an 110kw pack or 135kw pack, Then Tesla will do it.
I think people would even buy it if we live in an EV utopia, where there are fast chargers everywhere.
Imagine the torque of an Model S AWD P135+

Just as a comparison, The Mercedes Benz S-Class 65AMG hast 630 Horse Powers.
Its an complete overkill and far more useless then an 135kw or 200kw package.

As Elon and JB mentioned many times already, they see a Battery improvement of 8%/year
lets do some basic math

2012 - 85kw
2013 - 92kw
2014 - 99kw
2015 - 107kw
2016 - 116kw
2017 - 125kw
2018 - 135kw
2019 - 145kw
2020 - 157kw
2021 - 170kw
2022 - 183kw
2023 - 198kw
2024 - 214kw

of course this is oversimplified, at some point LiIon will hit a ceiling of kWh/kg but at around the same time new technologies could come to the market.

I forgot about this piece of the argument, which is that a more powerful battery allows for the motor to get more power, which would provide the ability to further increase performance, on top of better range.
 
*sigh* same argument again. Didn't we have this discussion already somewhere?

Basically what I want is one of the following:

1) a battery which takes me at least 400km in any weather. That's ~250 miles. I don't mind driving at 90km/h, that's the speed limit here anyway. With this range I can get to most places and back in one day.
2) supercharger coverage that is pretty much on every route that I take that is above ~100 miles.

Now I took the 2014 winter (max out map there is for EU) and marked where I am and where I usually drive.

Screen Shot 2014-03-08 at 12.30.42.png


Now considering that ~4 months every year the temperature is < 5C meaning that battery requires heating and range is reduced. Ca 1-2 months of the year the temperature is -25..-10 requiring A LOT of battery heating and in general heating that reduces the range even at 90km/h to 160-200 miles at best. I have done a couple of 300+ km one-way trips, but only when I stay overnight so that I can recharge at the hotel. I will need to take a 600+ km trip in May (Tallinn-Riga-Tallinn) on the same day. There is no charging infrastructure in Riga and I need to stay there for ca 2h only with no way to charge at my end destination (it's a big shopping center where a dog show takes place). My only hope really is to either spend a ******** of time going there and coming back by charging in the various chargers in Estonia at measly 40km/h rate (car I got didn't come with dual charger, but even dual is crap for those speeds) or pray that I get a CHAdeMO charger before May 17th that should give me 150-170km/h charge speed. Or rent an ICE (*shudders*).

I would have NO ISSUES charging at superchargers if there were any between Tallinn and Riga. However even though this is Via Baltica, the main route from Finland to central EU, there is no superchargers there nor will there be this year. I have no clue as to what Tesla plans in 2015, but I'd not bet my house on getting any before 2016+. Also I'd like to go to Lithuania for dog shows, but the one way trip is 500-700km. Even for a multi day show I cannot make it there, not even in summer.

I knew what I was getting into, but I would have forked over even more money if I could have gotten a 120kWh or higher pack just to get the extra range for those trips. I do hope that Tesla sees enough potential in the region that it adds at least to the 2015 map the via baltica (at the minimum they could do 5-7 SC's and connect from Tallinn-Berlin i.e. connecting to the generic EU network. But there is a case for larger batteries in regions that don't have SC's or in regions where there is a long time of cold weather / mountains that reduces the range significantly. Yes, FANGO's argument of maximum daily driving may be about right, but that doesn't change when the temperature drops and weather gets bad. That's what the buffer is for.
 
I think it boils down to if you don't think you need a 110kwh battery pack, then save $10k and buy the 85kwh pack. Tesla originally saw a need for 3 pack sizes and very few people bought the smallest one so they killed it.

The 85kwh pack is by far their best seller, I think it stands to reason that outside of California land most would buy a 110kwh pack. I suspect that even in California the best seller would be the 110.

A 110kwh pack would give us 342 miles rated and 240 real miles in mountainous highways in cold weather. It may not seem like much more but it really is a huge difference.

My average watts/mile is 409. That because of the cold weather and mountainous highways. My number is a little better than it should be because I always preheat our car before leaving in cold weather and when the temps are less than 25F I move the slider to range charge 30 minutes before leaving too so the pack gets warmed up with shore power. In the extreme cold when doing this I have seen charge rates if 1mph for 20 minutes with 40amps 240volts. Even doing that on those days I saw 600+w/mile and the battery never fully warmed during my 70 miles of errand driving around town. I average over 500w/m on days like that.
 
IThe 85kwh pack is by far their best seller, I think it stands to reason that outside of California land most would buy a 110kwh pack. I suspect that even in California the best seller would be the 110.

In my opinion, it's the best seller because that's the largest pack available. Had a 110 kWh pack been available from the start, it could well have been their best seller. It's hard to make a case against having too much range assuming that price doesn't push it too high and efficiency is not hampered.
 
Pro:
Range
Performance
Charging speed
Discharge rate

Con:
Fewer vehicles until cell supply resolved
Loss of opportunity for smaller, lighter battery

Build Gigafactories to increase supply so they can decide.
Fix pack physical size to car form factor.
Keep increasing capacities as cell tech allows (volumetric and gravimetric densities, thermal properties).
The only way is up, but not too much yet because more cells per battery means fewer cars sold.
 
When I was a young man I would have wanted the greatest range. To drive fast and far.

As a young father, I would stop frequently for the kids, range was far less important.

Now that I'm nearly 60 years old, I'm not going that far between bathrooms, range is a non-issue.

Range is less significant to a Model S owner, that will change with the Model E.
 
Last edited:
Now that I'm nearly 60 years old, I'm not going that far between bathrooms

Agreed on this one, but that only works if there are adequate Superchargers and you always travel on Interstate highways. Non-Interstate highways will have no Superchargers for the foreseeable future, so range will be important for a long time to come for many people.
 
In most, if not all of Europe, the general highway speed limit is 130kmh/80mph. That means people drive long distances at 130-150kmh. Early adopters, enthusiasts, our little community may be fine going 55-60mph to save power until the next SC, but your mainstream audience won't, and quite frankly shouldn't. This is a 100k car after all. Add to that the terrain, this thing called weather, and you get the picture why we are fighting an uphill battle in places like Germany.

A denser SC network will help a lot, but, as others have said, there will never be as many SCs as petrol stations so the network will remain less flexible. It's not like you can drive down any country road and be sure there will be a gas station every 50 miles or so. Also, current charge speeds - while impressive and 20x better than anything else - still mean you expect people to plan more ahead and spend more time refueling than with an ICE.

Again, Tesla is in a class of its own, hence the huge success, but 265 EPA is surely not the end of the road.

PS: Elon also said during his European tour (in Norway, last forum), that a bigger battery may come in 2015.
 
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.


This may have been addressed but I can confirm for sure that what DaveT posted was accurate. I remember hearing (not reading) Elon say it. It was on a conference call. Elon also said that you would be able to upgrade your car with the newer batteries. (since he said that they have backtracked on the comment and said get the battery you want now.)

It is I think a little short sighted to think that the range of Tesla vehicles will not improve. Although it is not needed for everyone there are 10s of thousands of people that need more range than what is currently offered and I am sure that number is higher if you include areas outside the US. I know the majority of people don't drive more than 50 miles a day and might find it hard to believe that people drive 200+ miles most days but that does not change the reality that there are a lot of people that would require or like more range and would be willing to pay a premium for it.
 
Clearly there are some customers to be gained by adding range.
I think Tesla will gain far more customers by offering a 265 mile car for less money instead of a longer range car for any amount of money.
There are a lot more potential customers on one side of that equation.

I think what is missing from this debate is the other way to increase useful range.
They could make cars with more range, but nobody is thinking about more superchargers.
The Tesla map of the US & Canada shows about 200-250 dots by 2015. That will cover most interstates, but it doesn't cover a lot of secondary routes.
I think that it would take another 400-500 or so supercharger locations to cover most secondary routes.
Massively more supercharger coverage will gain more customers - at every price point and every range point - than more range on one charge. Supercharger coverage enables arbitrarily long trips.

The question then is: How can Tesla get others to grow the supercharger network for them?
 
The question then is: How can Tesla get others to grow the supercharger network for them?

That's a nice idea, but the problem is that once the Superchargers are no longer controlled by Tesla, reliability will go down which will defeat the goal. I'd like to see Tesla much more aggressive about pushing out HPWCs to businesses.
 
I think what is missing from this debate is the other way to increase useful range.
They could make cars with more range, but nobody is thinking about more superchargers.
The Tesla map of the US & Canada shows about 200-250 dots by 2015. That will cover most interstates, but it doesn't cover a lot of secondary routes.
I think that it would take another 400-500 or so supercharger locations to cover most secondary routes.
Massively more supercharger coverage will gain more customers - at every price point and every range point - than more range on one charge. Supercharger coverage enables arbitrarily long trips.
I think for the few numbers of potential customers in more remote areas it makes more sense to offer larger packs that the buyer pays for than building more superchargers that will be under utilized which Tesla pays for. Additional superchargers also don't address the charging time needed on a trip that could otherwise be done without stopping with a larger battery.
 
JRP3: I understand your rationalization and I very, very much hope you are wrong. As I have written elsewhere, I have an extreme case as to what constitutes a remote area. When we do get to our permanent home and have some time under our belt experiencing what it is like to operate a Model S as far removed from anything as we are, I'll report back as to how well an 85kWh-equipped vehicle operates.
 
I think for the few numbers of potential customers in more remote areas it makes more sense to offer larger packs that the buyer pays for than building more superchargers that will be under utilized which Tesla pays for. Additional superchargers also don't address the charging time needed on a trip that could otherwise be done without stopping with a larger battery.

Sure, but these are not the new customers I would prioritize.

I would prioritize customers in more densely populated areas, that are slightly below the current price point.
I would iterate over and over on reaching down the price scale long before I worried about the potential customers that 265 miles isn't sufficient for.