Business Case for Better Range

[jerry33]

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.

The problem with this hypothesis is that the customers below the price point emulate the behaviour of those at or above the price point. One example is that very low profile tires are in fashion because the tire companies have sold us on the idea that "racers use them", even though almost all the difficult conditions drivers face in day to day driving--such as snow and ice, potholes, road debris--are better served by higher profile, longer lasting, more robust tires.

Virtually every person that I have shown the Model S to (and there have been hundreds, if not thousands) asks about range. After I tell them, not one person has ever said "That's too much, I don't need that much". The only reason people settle for less range is financial.

 

[JRP3]

We know the Gen3/Model E is targeting those customers and we know when it's coming. In the meantime if cost and density allows I see no reason not to offer more range, and plenty of reasons to do so. Fact is there are probably a significant number of existing S owners that would buy a new S with more range right now if it were offered. Plus I think they must be working on a larger pack option for the Model X to give it similar range to the S, and since it's the same platform there is no reason it couldn't be offered as a longer range option for the S.

 

[rcc]

I've thought about this a lot.

A 400-500 mile pack makes long distance driving as easy and carefree as the 85KW pack makes daily driving. Without this, I think EVs are a hard sell for the masses. Because when you go on a family road-trip, you don't need your car adding to the stress. You've got enough to deal with already .

EVs with 400-500+ mile packs means we need a much lower investment in L2 charging to make mass adoption of EVs viable. If you think about hotels full of S85 drivers on road-trips and think about how many of them need L2 charging, it doesn't work. But I can see this working if they were all driving S120s or S160s.

So I think 85KW EVs are practical or I wouldn't have bought one. But I don't think we can get mass EV adoption (at least not in the US) until we get 400-500+ mile packs.

Rationale / long version:

1) The big win for 400-500 mile range for users is more convenience and flexibility when you travel. I'm planning an SF to LA to SD and back trip and figuring out charging, even with an 85KW pack is a real hassle, especially at the destinations when I'm going to have to drive around the local area every day so I need to recharge.

The 85KW pack is great for daily driving and with care and planning, you can make it work most of the time for travel. But it's a pain and requires care that most people don't want to deal with.

2) The huge win is 400-500 mile packs means we can get by with many fewer L2 chargers. Without this, I don't think we will be able to put in enough L2 chargers at hotels and parking lots/garages to make mass adoption of EVs practical. Most places I see that have chargers have a small handful. 1-2 at a hotel. 6-20 at huge places like Disneyland garages or convention centers. You'd need 20-50x the number if most people drove EVs. Figure 200 parking spaces at a random hotel. They need 50-100 chargers if everyone drove up in EVs. Then think about the garages with thousands of spaces.

We as a society need to install an astronomical amount of L2 chargers if EVs need to charge almost every night. Not practical. But if you can increase the # of days between charges from 1-2 to 2-5? That's drops the L2 charger demand a lot.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I'm in favor of 400 and 500 mile range packs being offered when cell energy density makes such batteries feasible.

The current 85 kWh pack is much more than good enough for everyday driving, and as others have pointed out, good for road trips if one plans ahead. However, I would welcome a battery pack that has such a deep reserve that the driver can drive fast, tackle hills, and turn on the heat in the winter without worrying one bit about running out of energy.

I think people would pay extra for the convenience of a larger pack. I'm hopeful that advances in technology will make it possible.

 

[aronth5]

This thread reminds me of the discussions many, many years ago, no lets say arguments, when the 3.5 inch drives came out to replace the 5 1/4 floppy drive. And also why would anyone need more than 640k of memory?
Go back and look at PC Magazine for example and its amazing how many said these advances were not needed. I still remember arguing with our desktop techs that we should buy PC's with a mg of memory even though DOS only supported 640K.

The only question with range is how much will it increase over time not if its necessary.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

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?

They don't. They simply keep adding Superchargers that cover the outliers. The outliers are just routes with a low weight in terms of importance, and it's why it's important that people in different locations point out what they consjder important routes to Tesla. Since Tesla cars have long range, Superchargers will be for longer trips which I would expect to be lost as noise in general traffic numbers which mix more local traffic with through-traffic. The more pertinent information Tesla has, the better.

Well, free rent would help, I'm sure.

 

[Theshadows]

I've thought about this a lot.

A 400-500 mile pack makes long distance driving as easy and carefree as the 85KW pack makes daily driving. Without this, I think EVs are a hard sell for the masses. Because when you go on a family road-trip, you don't need your car adding to the stress. You've got enough to deal with already .

EVs with 400-500+ mile packs means we need a much lower investment in L2 charging to make mass adoption of EVs viable. If you think about hotels full of S85 drivers on road-trips and think about how many of them need L2 charging, it doesn't work. But I can see this working if they were all driving S120s or S160s.

So I think 85KW EVs are practical or I wouldn't have bought one. But I don't think we can get mass EV adoption (at least not in the US) until we get 400-500+ mile packs.

Rationale / long version:

1) The big win for 400-500 mile range for users is more convenience and flexibility when you travel. I'm planning an SF to LA to SD and back trip and figuring out charging, even with an 85KW pack is a real hassle, especially at the destinations when I'm going to have to drive around the local area every day so I need to recharge.

The 85KW pack is great for daily driving and with care and planning, you can make it work most of the time for travel. But it's a pain and requires care that most people don't want to deal with.

2) The huge win is 400-500 mile packs means we can get by with many fewer L2 chargers. Without this, I don't think we will be able to put in enough L2 chargers at hotels and parking lots/garages to make mass adoption of EVs practical. Most places I see that have chargers have a small handful. 1-2 at a hotel. 6-20 at huge places like Disneyland garages or convention centers. You'd need 20-50x the number if most people drove EVs. Figure 200 parking spaces at a random hotel. They need 50-100 chargers if everyone drove up in EVs. Then think about the garages with thousands of spaces.

We as a society need to install an astronomical amount of L2 chargers if EVs need to charge almost every night. Not practical. But if you can increase the # of days between charges from 1-2 to 2-5? That's drops the L2 charger demand a lot.

I noticed in our area a major convince store chain is working on installing chademo chargers at their major stores.

With this happening I will be investing in the adapter because it will dramatically help us out. I'm sure they will not be free, but at 150mph, this will make route planning a lot easier.

 

[Robert.Boston]

This thread reminds me of the discussions many, many years ago, no lets say arguments, when the 3.5 inch drives came out to replace the 5 1/4 floppy drive. And also why would anyone need more than 640k of memory?
Go back and look at PC Magazine for example and its amazing how many said these advances were not needed. I still remember arguing with our desktop techs that we should buy PC's with a mg of memory even though DOS only supported 640K.

The only question with range is how much will it increase over time not if its necessary.

I remember those debates, but I don't think they're entirely on point. There is an almost limitless amount of data that could be stored, but the earth's surface isn't getting any bigger. Moreover, there was no performance reduction from having larger storage devices (in fact, the opposite; those 3.5" were more reliable and faster), whereas adding more batteries will always weigh more than a smaller pack (of the same vintage).

What this boils down to is bigger batteries v. better charging infrastructure. ICE vehicles have tanks that aren't super-large because the refueling infrastructure is dense; the size is driven mostly by the inconvenience of getting to a gas station. If the Supercharger network were also dense, e.g. every 50 miles along all federal and interstate highways, even a 60kWh pack might be sufficient for most people. But until we get such high densities, I think there will be a market for a larger pack, e.g. 110 kWh, particularly in areas with weak charging infrastructure.

From a sales perspective, it's always better to have options.

 

[pz1975]

I think a powerful marketing angle would be if prospective buyers found out that the range of a Tesla was actually significantly greater than an ICE car, which of course would require a bigger battery. If people knew they could go further on a full 'tank', and the supercharger network was all laid out, that could be the final straw to convince a huge segment of the population with inherent range anxiety to make the switch.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I think a powerful marketing angle would be if prospective buyers found out that the range of a Tesla was actually significantly greater than an ICE car, which of course would require a bigger battery. If people knew they could go further on a full 'tank', and the supercharger network was all laid out, that could be the final straw to convince a huge segment of the population with inherent range anxiety to make the switch.

I don't think the extra range itself is the big deal. To me it all comes down to charging/refueling. Once you hit a bad-weather 120 to 150 mark you pretty much have "normal" (commute plus regular weekend) driving covered with home charging, and the remaining question is "Can I do my special long trips in this car?" The really big deal about bigger batteries is that they can be charged faster (mph). At Tesla capacities, I'd expect that the reduced overhead from fewer stops is less of an issue.

 

[JRP3]

ICE vehicles have tanks that aren't super-large because the refueling infrastructure is dense...

You left out the other significant component: Refueling an ICE is fast. No matter how dense the charge network becomes I think we are a long way away from putting in miles at a similar rate as an ICE. Larger packs reduce that difference to some degree in two ways, it allows faster charge rates for longer periods, and it allows longer trips without stopping to charge at all.

 

[Rashomon]

A higher capacity pack will almost certainly happen. Short term, cell count won't change, but instead of the current 3.2 Ah - 4C cell, a higher capacity one will be used. Panasonic pre-announced a 4.0 Ah 18650 cell with a silicon anode in 2009 for 2013 production, but had issues with it (almost certainly cycle life) so it has yet to see production. The substitution of a 4.0ah cell would produce a 107kWh pack. The cycle life issues of silicon or sulfur anodes will yield to material nano-structure development in production before too much longer. Also, as the range goes up, acceptable cycle life goes down; with a real world range of 300 miles, 600 complete cycles is 180,000 miles, and real world use with partial pack discharges would see much longer life.

Also, I would expect a future performance Model S with 4wd that will cement Tesla's performance image re: AMG and BMW M series sedans. A larger pack will almost certainly be required to support the peak current draw such a model will demand.

 

[dsm363]

I remember those debates, but I don't think they're entirely on point. There is an almost limitless amount of data that could be stored, but the earth's surface isn't getting any bigger. Moreover, there was no performance reduction from having larger storage devices (in fact, the opposite; those 3.5" were more reliable and faster), whereas adding more batteries will always weigh more than a smaller pack (of the same vintage).

What this boils down to is bigger batteries v. better charging infrastructure. ICE vehicles have tanks that aren't super-large because the refueling infrastructure is dense; the size is driven mostly by the inconvenience of getting to a gas station. If the Supercharger network were also dense, e.g. every 50 miles along all federal and interstate highways, even a 60kWh pack might be sufficient for most people. But until we get such high densities, I think there will be a market for a larger pack, e.g. 110 kWh, particularly in areas with weak charging infrastructure.

From a sales perspective, it's always better to have options.

Totally agree. A 110kWh would be a no brainier option for Tesla down the road and go back to three battery pack options for the Model S. Maybe something like 70, 90 and 110 kWh as an example.

 

[chickensevil]

A higher capacity pack will almost certainly happen. Short term, cell count won't change, but instead of the current 3.2 Ah - 4C cell, a higher capacity one will be used. Panasonic pre-announced a 4.0 Ah 18650 cell with a silicon anode in 2009 for 2013 production, but had issues with it (almost certainly cycle life) so it has yet to see production. The substitution of a 4.0ah cell would produce a 107kWh pack. The cycle life issues of silicon or sulfur anodes will yield to material nano-structure development in production before too much longer. Also, as the range goes up, acceptable cycle life goes down; with a real world range of 300 miles, 600 complete cycles is 180,000 miles, and real world use with partial pack discharges would see much longer life.

Also, I would expect a future performance Model S with 4wd that will cement Tesla's performance image re: AMG and BMW M series sedans. A larger pack will almost certainly be required to support the peak current draw such a model will demand.

Aside from that increasing the HP and Torque, they will still need to solve the cooling issue before they can really hit the performance benchmarks they need to. Got to figure out some way to cool the motor and the battery better/faster.

But otherwise, yes, generally a larger battery = higher performance. Which is largely why the MS is able to pull almost as good of numbers as the roadster is. Could you imagine a roadster with an 85kW battery? That thing might break 3 seconds!

 

[aronth5]

I remember those debates, but I don't think they're entirely on point. There is an almost limitless amount of data that could be stored, but the earth's surface isn't getting any bigger. Moreover, there was no performance reduction from having larger storage devices (in fact, the opposite; those 3.5" were more reliable and faster), whereas adding more batteries will always weigh more than a smaller pack (of the same vintage).

What this boils down to is bigger batteries v. better charging infrastructure. ICE vehicles have tanks that aren't super-large because the refueling infrastructure is dense; the size is driven mostly by the inconvenience of getting to a gas station. If the Supercharger network were also dense, e.g. every 50 miles along all federal and interstate highways, even a 60kWh pack might be sufficient for most people. But until we get such high densities, I think there will be a market for a larger pack, e.g. 110 kWh, particularly in areas with weak charging infrastructure. From a sales perspective, it's always better to have options.

Agree with your point to an extent but a better charging infrastructure that only has more charging locations is only a partial solution. It is not bigger batteries vs. better charging. It will be both. Many people, my wife included don't want to take the time to stop and charge as frequently as early adopters. Tesla needs to find the right balance of larger batteries and more charging locations. This will be a journey and Tesla will adapt and adjust their strategy over time as battery technology changes. And what works for sometime today may not work as well in 5 years when their range is less.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The key is destination charging. We drove from Boston to Northampton MA yesterday; if we had driven carefully, we could have done the round-trip without charging. But there are several L2 charging spots in Northampton, and we were spending the day there at a cultural event. So, we could drive as we pleased (and did, thank you very much, and enjoyed it).

 

[Rashomon]

Aside from that increasing the HP and Torque, they will still need to solve the cooling issue before they can really hit the performance benchmarks they need to. Got to figure out some way to cool the motor and the battery better/faster.

But otherwise, yes, generally a larger battery = higher performance. Which is largely why the MS is able to pull almost as good of numbers as the roadster is. Could you imagine a roadster with an 85kW battery? That thing might break 3 seconds!

Cooling with a 4wd performance model will be easier as the 2nd motor and inverter add thermal mass and cooling capability. Cooling the battery will be harder. What you really want for the battery is more energy, more power, and less cell impedance, which are generally contradictory design goals, though sometimes you can have your cake and eat a little of it through cell improvements.

 

[brianman]

You would spend $10k on a bigger battery

Probably, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I've never seen a laptop with too much RAM, or too much battery capacity.