It might be that, in addition to the improvements to the Energy App and Nav. System, Elon will reveal that all cars shipped with E battery packs (approximately since December, 56,XXX VINs) have battery with the same quantity of cells, but each of which has slightly larger capacity (10%). This additional capacity could be made usable via an OTA software update, resulting in EPA range of D cars hitting 300 miles. See this post for additional details.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon "About to end range anxiety"
- Thread starter Lump
- Start date
NigelM
Recovering Member
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Even if you can get a 10% capacity increase it's still not going to get 300 miles of range. 270 + 10% = 297. You'll have to get more efficiency than what they have now. Based on my experience with my 85D I'm not even seeing the efficiency that an S85 gets, let alone the efficiency that the 85D is supposed to be getting. So I find this whole theory rather dubious.
You're basically saying that Tesla has been lying about the capacity of the E pack vehicles and software limiting them. That they continued to do this after all the drama over the P85D's having less range than this and then they put out a software update that messed around with turning off a motor when they had 10% extra battery capacity at hand? I'm sorry but that's just too much for me to accept.
Don't get me wrong I'd be very happy if you're right, but I think you're very wrong.
Looks that you did not read the post from the other thread that I linked - it has additional details worth reading...
No worries.
The vast majority of us who are having fun speculating will be eating our words. :wink:
I do share your viewpoint that it would be a crying shame if this press event was just confinded to discussing a software update.
Larry
Although I do share the excitement about potential future hardware updates, I wouldn't underestimate the impact of a simple software update on the whole driving/charging experience of the car - we're talking about Tesla, folks. This is not a BMW about to get a new CarPlay version...
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I saw your other post before I replied to this one. Nothing in there changes my opinion on this. It's based one one analyst report and a couple of very sparse threads on TMC. Throw in a whole lot of hand waving as to where the extra 3 miles come from in getting to 300 miles.
Unfortunately, I also feel the press conference will be a let down. And not because there won't be some interesting information but the fact it was over-hyped by Elon. He should have just said there will be a "significant reduction in range anxiety" since that is actually doable. But as many know, Elon gets a little carried away but that is one of his charming qualities:smile:
deonb
Active Member
I've driven about 50% more per year since getting my Model S than I did with my ICE, and I spend about 25% less time per year waiting for charging than I did waiting for refueling with my ICE, and it's a much more pleasant wait. The gas station model is mostly a perception issue for people that have never owned an E.V., because that's all they have to compare it to.
I think it will be immensely useful from a marketing point of view to have 5 minute charging, but it doesn't actually do anything for range anxiety of existing owners.
What changes things is more chargers, and knowing that you can get to them.
DrGuest
Member
+1 I have heard that Four Seasons Resorts and Best Western Hotel are chains very supportive of installing HPWC and becoming Charging Partners. What if all the 4 Season's, Best Westerns and maybe another chain, like Hampton Inn all install HPWC's and all become available hassle free and without having to purchase or stay there, The OTA update will suddenly add every location turning the Maps "Red" with new charging sites. The News conference could be with the Pres. VP of The Chains and Elon making their official endorsements. If someone travels multiple nights we have to stay over night some where and why not at a Charging Partner hotel? I just would like to have access without having to call in advance or to have to buy something for short 1-3 hour charges. Plenty of over nights stays will be booked eventually and many meals bought in hotel restaurants, eventually. I would like to see Charging Partners give a little while letting the system mature to then get there return. Example, In the city of Helena,MT their is a "Suds Hut Famous Chicken & Casino" that is a Charging Partner. It would eliminate my Range anxiety to know that I could pull up there and charge for 1-2 hours without someone coming out and asking me how much Chicken I want. also that they are available 24/7 like superchargers and don't close after store hours. That 1-2 hours would be enough to visit/shop around town and still make it 100 miles back Home with a buffer for wind and cold. Also if a deal with Congress for all the National Parks to Have level 2 Chargers free of charge to visit within the National Parks. They could have National Park Management at the Press Conference, Too! But alas, all is just conjecture..."The easiest way to be wrong is to try and predict the Future!"- Dr. Gary M.Guest- You can Quote me on that!
Less than 40 hours to find out for sure 
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I very much doubt that Thursday's announcement will have anything to do with expanded charging locations, battery swaps, metal-air packs, and other physical items. Elon is a bluntly straightforward person, so I take his statement at face value that this will be about a software update and nothing more.
Anxiety is at its core a product of uncertainty. Navigation software that takes into account changes in elevation, weather, temperature, traffic, driving style, and other variables and answers the question of: "will I be able to drive to X, Y, and Z locations without running out of charge" is the simplest way to eliminate uncertainty. I'm sure that this kind of software solution would also be able to suggest a route incorporating Supercharger stops if the driver can't make it to their ultimate destination on the current battery charge level.
Anxiety is at its core a product of uncertainty. Navigation software that takes into account changes in elevation, weather, temperature, traffic, driving style, and other variables and answers the question of: "will I be able to drive to X, Y, and Z locations without running out of charge" is the simplest way to eliminate uncertainty. I'm sure that this kind of software solution would also be able to suggest a route incorporating Supercharger stops if the driver can't make it to their ultimate destination on the current battery charge level.
Not cynical at all...realistic. But do the Teamsters care if their members are actually driving? As long as there is a union member getting paid union rates riding in the cab "supervising", it shouldn't matter if the computer or union member is driving (well, until the computer's join the union...that would be interesting!).
Well, the core still remains that range anxiety, as the general non-Tesla public perceives it, is still very much tied to range and charging time. Not highly accurate guess-o-meters built into navigation.
All the minor EVs out there with 60-80 mile ranges have software that relatively accurately gauges your range, as much as a Tesla does now anyways. If for example a Leaf had 100% accurate range estimates based on navigation, there wouldn't be a single person out there who would say "Look! Range anxiety solved!" for the Leaf. Similarly, the general public/press looks at something like the Bolt, and says "Well, now that's a car the average consumer could realistically buy, as consumers won't have much as much anxiety compared to current-gen affordable EVs".
As others mentioned, ICEs don't have range anxiety because they fill up quickly, and can fill up at many locations despite often times having range near or under the Model S. So I definitely agree that a press conference isn't being thrown simply to announce a software update, especially one that (in my opinion) pales in comparison to increasing the acceleration of a car OTA, that was announced through twitter and nothing more. Either the OTA update is incredible and is more important, more of a breakthrough than increasing a car's acceleration OTA (some sort of mathematical breakthrough with the motor and torque sleep); or, there's bound to be something else in the conference as well, something physical that isn't done OTA but is related to the update.
Musk's mindset is heavily focused on replacing all ICEs with BEVs. He has a good understanding to the barriers affecting adoption. Many of these barriers are completely superficial, but he's still blasted them down. The first major EV barrier he smashed is that electric cars were glorified golf carts, so he made one that could best supercars in acceleration times. His family cars still have sports-car like capabilities. How exactly does making a car accelerate extremely quickly make it practical for consumers? It doesn't, except for the fact that it makes converts out of ICE drivers. He very early and very quickly began a buildout of the supercharger network, and is even doing so in places like China where demand is very weak. Why are so many superchargers within 60-100 miles of each other? Also not practical or needed for cross-country trips, except that it makes converts out of ICE drivers by more closely emulating what they're familiar with in gas stations. I guarantee that Musk has not lost vision of the barriers involved in mass EV adoption, so you can bet that in trying to defeat another big EV adoption barrier (range anxiety) he's not suddenly going to forget what the average consumer's viewpoint is of EVs. 100% accurate calculation is awesome for an EV driver, but it's a concept that is completely lost to the average consumer as is demonstrated by the lack of media speculation over additional navigation features.
I could go on with other things (the warranty upgrade, the resale value guarantee, etc.)--many things that don't make EVs more practical, but make ICE drivers consider and convert. Most if not all of Tesla's big announcements focus on this point. It could very well be a flop, but he definitely has something up his sleeve even if it's not solely a "magic" OTA update.
My two cents!
All the minor EVs out there with 60-80 mile ranges have software that relatively accurately gauges your range, as much as a Tesla does now anyways. If for example a Leaf had 100% accurate range estimates based on navigation, there wouldn't be a single person out there who would say "Look! Range anxiety solved!" for the Leaf. Similarly, the general public/press looks at something like the Bolt, and says "Well, now that's a car the average consumer could realistically buy, as consumers won't have much as much anxiety compared to current-gen affordable EVs".
As others mentioned, ICEs don't have range anxiety because they fill up quickly, and can fill up at many locations despite often times having range near or under the Model S. So I definitely agree that a press conference isn't being thrown simply to announce a software update, especially one that (in my opinion) pales in comparison to increasing the acceleration of a car OTA, that was announced through twitter and nothing more. Either the OTA update is incredible and is more important, more of a breakthrough than increasing a car's acceleration OTA (some sort of mathematical breakthrough with the motor and torque sleep); or, there's bound to be something else in the conference as well, something physical that isn't done OTA but is related to the update.
Musk's mindset is heavily focused on replacing all ICEs with BEVs. He has a good understanding to the barriers affecting adoption. Many of these barriers are completely superficial, but he's still blasted them down. The first major EV barrier he smashed is that electric cars were glorified golf carts, so he made one that could best supercars in acceleration times. His family cars still have sports-car like capabilities. How exactly does making a car accelerate extremely quickly make it practical for consumers? It doesn't, except for the fact that it makes converts out of ICE drivers. He very early and very quickly began a buildout of the supercharger network, and is even doing so in places like China where demand is very weak. Why are so many superchargers within 60-100 miles of each other? Also not practical or needed for cross-country trips, except that it makes converts out of ICE drivers by more closely emulating what they're familiar with in gas stations. I guarantee that Musk has not lost vision of the barriers involved in mass EV adoption, so you can bet that in trying to defeat another big EV adoption barrier (range anxiety) he's not suddenly going to forget what the average consumer's viewpoint is of EVs. 100% accurate calculation is awesome for an EV driver, but it's a concept that is completely lost to the average consumer as is demonstrated by the lack of media speculation over additional navigation features.
I could go on with other things (the warranty upgrade, the resale value guarantee, etc.)--many things that don't make EVs more practical, but make ICE drivers consider and convert. Most if not all of Tesla's big announcements focus on this point. It could very well be a flop, but he definitely has something up his sleeve even if it's not solely a "magic" OTA update.
My two cents!
Indeed. it's how trains work. Automated systems, meatsack's job is to confirm at intervals that the train isn't broken.
+100. A nav system that 100% tells me that I cannot make my destination and therefore re-directs me to a level 2 'plugshare' charger that charges at 17mph is no where near able to eliminate range anxiety. This requires either a range extender that is easily replaced in minutes (e.g. air-metal battery) or a major step up in speed and number of super-chargers. Range anxiety is not just from being worried about running out of juice, but rather also having to charge at a ridiculously slow speeds to get to ones destination.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
I just completed a 1500 plus mile trip from southern CA (Desert Hot Springs) to Eastern WA just west of Spokane. We left Friday afternoon, charged at Barstow, then at Lone Pine where we spent the night. Next day we charged 3 hours in Bishop at Highlands RV park to be certain we'd make it to Reno that afternoon. The 3 hours was more than needed, but I wanted to be certain to have some range to drive around Reno. We spent 2 nights in Reno, but Sunday I drove to Truckee to charge up, so I could take a direct route from Reno to Mnt. Shasta. We left Reno about 9:00 a.m. yesterday. From Mnt. Shasta we traveled up I-5 to Woodburn where we spent the night. This a.m. we left Woodburn and drove to The Dalles, where I did a max range charge to be certain to make it to Ritzville to do a final charge to make it home with at least 150 range miles left.
You may ask "Why is he relaying all this 'whatever...)?
It's because I had no range anxiety at any point on the trip because I'd used EV planner before leaving. I knew that I could make it the 223 miles from Reno to the Mnt. Shasta supercharger, the 215 miles from Grants Pass to Woodburn, and the 215 miles from The Dalles to Ritzville, if I drove a little bit on the conservative side. In some cases as much as 10 mile per hour below the speed limit, but most of the time at 65 mph (which is the legal limit most of the routes in Oregon). The last 50 miles I traveled 70 mph, as it became apparent that I had plenty of energy remaining to make it to Ritzville which included a 1700 ft elevation increase.
Several times I received the yellow warning to drive slower to be sure to make it to the next charger. The warning went away after a few miles of driving slower.
What could have improved the experience and helped those that hadn't gone to the trouble to plan ahead of time (or even those that had done planning) would be more information about recommended speeds for the current (not electrical) load on the motor continuously along the trip. This could also minimize the combination of driving and charging times.
Increased range would be wonderful, and I would certainly welcome it. However, I don't expect the press release to reveal a significant enough increase in range to eliminate anxiety. After all, someone is eventually going to have a 500 mile pack and decide to travel 100 mph uphill to the point where they notice that don't have enough remaining range to make it to their destination. Then all the anxiety is back.
Now other people have essentially related what I've stated here, but I just wanted to reiterate from my recent experience.
You may ask "Why is he relaying all this 'whatever...)?
It's because I had no range anxiety at any point on the trip because I'd used EV planner before leaving. I knew that I could make it the 223 miles from Reno to the Mnt. Shasta supercharger, the 215 miles from Grants Pass to Woodburn, and the 215 miles from The Dalles to Ritzville, if I drove a little bit on the conservative side. In some cases as much as 10 mile per hour below the speed limit, but most of the time at 65 mph (which is the legal limit most of the routes in Oregon). The last 50 miles I traveled 70 mph, as it became apparent that I had plenty of energy remaining to make it to Ritzville which included a 1700 ft elevation increase.
Several times I received the yellow warning to drive slower to be sure to make it to the next charger. The warning went away after a few miles of driving slower.
What could have improved the experience and helped those that hadn't gone to the trouble to plan ahead of time (or even those that had done planning) would be more information about recommended speeds for the current (not electrical) load on the motor continuously along the trip. This could also minimize the combination of driving and charging times.
Increased range would be wonderful, and I would certainly welcome it. However, I don't expect the press release to reveal a significant enough increase in range to eliminate anxiety. After all, someone is eventually going to have a 500 mile pack and decide to travel 100 mph uphill to the point where they notice that don't have enough remaining range to make it to their destination. Then all the anxiety is back.
Now other people have essentially related what I've stated here, but I just wanted to reiterate from my recent experience.
Were you range charging at every supercharger? The problem I see with long trips is knowing when to leave the supercharger, not necessarily making sure you have enough range. I know this has been covered several times in this thread, and I'm sure Tesla could come up with some smarter ways to handle it than the current nav system.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
I only range charged before leaving Reno, and at The Dalles. I didn't use superchargers anywhere south of Mnt. Shasta on I-5. I usually did try to leave a 50 mile buffer at the shorter distance. i.e., Mnt. Shasta to Grants Pass and Woodburn to The Dalles. Actually, at Grants pass I just charged to within 5 miles of max rated range. But I tried to travel above the speed limit by 5 mph on the shorter sections. I only let the max range finish and balance at Reno and at The Dalles.
BTW, in no case did I arrive at the next charger with less than 30 miles rated range remaining. But if better software gave me the confidence, I would be happy to arrive with 5-10 miles left.
Similar threads
