How come no (p)105d yet?

[whitex]

The current 100's are 105's if using the same math Tesla did to sell 81KWh (77KWh usable) batteries as 85KWh capacity.
(85/81)*100 = 105

 

[ucmndd]

Agree 100%. Those of us who frequently drive long distances see how annoying electric cars still are. Anyone who is saying 300 mile range is enough is just straight up wrong. It’s enough for day to day short distance driving. Electric cars need to be viable for EVERYONE, including those who drive long distances.

I’ve done lots of long distance electric driving (65k miles in two years) and can say definitively I’ve never been frustrated by having to stop too frequently. 335 miles in a 100D is basically max human bladder range as it is.

The fact that each of those stops needs to be 30-60 minutes instead of 10-15 is far more “annoying” to me in the scheme of things.

 

[Drone Flyer]

The next battery will be 120 kw!

 

[Shock-On-T]

I'd rather see more people charging at home. No one is in that much of a hurry at 2AM. "This would greatly reduce crowding at superchargers" by locals. The new Model S has 335 miles of range. Where can you go?? Might make it all the way to Wagga Wagga. Four superchargers between Sydney and Melbourne. And it's way worse in California.

I suppose it’s a matter of preference.

For me, battery capacity is not an issue when I’m charging at home (ie not road tripping). I could get away with a 60kWh battery for my daily driving.

When I road trip I don’t think I’d notice the difference between a 100 and 120 battery, but I’d really notice faster charging.

I don’t supercharge near my house, much easier in the garage

 

[xyeahtony]

Is 315 miles of daily driving not enough for some?

The currently battery pack is maxed out, you cant fit any more cells in there without redesigning the pack. And tesla will redesign the pack when they redesign the Model S, which will probably happen late next year. Cant really redesign the pack without redesigning the car, since the car was designed around the pack in the first place.

 

[ucmndd]

Is 315 miles of daily driving not enough for some?

The currently battery pack is maxed out, you cant fit any more cells in there without redesigning the pack. And tesla will redesign the pack when they redesign the Model S, which will probably happen late next year. Cant really redesign the pack without redesigning the car, since the car was designed around the pack in the first place.

I think they could likely modify the pack architecture to accommodate the 5mm taller 2170 cells without massive re-engineering of the entire vehicle. Pure speculation, but seems plausible. That will undoubtedly lead to an increase in energy density and could reasonably accommodate a 120kwh battery in the same space (again, pure speculation, but not outlandish).

I think we’ll continue to see incremental increases like this so long as cell costs continue their decline. One nice thing about higher capacity batteries is it makes faster charging much easier, without very high C rates. So in some ways bigger packs are the enabler of what I still maintain is the better solution for most - faster and more developed DC charging infrastructure to enable long distance travel just like gas stations do now.

 

[Iluvpcs]

I agree range is king when in sales and traveling around a large area per week. That said superchargers do give time to catch up on a few emails in better detail.

I’m sure if this EVER becomes reality - our 100d models will have 2500-3000 mile range... 10x more power than Lithium for same density.
Honda, CalTech and NASA's JPL might have a real alternative to Li-ion batteries - Roadshow

 

[David99]

310 miles of range seem plenty on paper, but that's not reality. First, no Tesla actually has the range it shows. The rated range is calculated based on the entire battery capacity, but Tesla cuts you off at aprox 8% to protect the battery for deep discharge. So you have 8% less range than EPA rated. It hides it by counting down the rated miles faster to end up at 0 when it actually is 8%. TO the user is looks like you are at 0% and zero miles. It's completely hidden to the user. (I have done extensive tests to confirm this)

Now let's look at a real driving situation. You don't want to run the battery all the way down. It's risky. I think aiming for 10% safety buffer is reasonable so we need to subtract 10%. You also don't want to charge beyond 80% as the charge rate drops too much wasting time. Add these up and you are only using 70% of the capacity, minus the 8% Tesla reserves. Now all of that is 'rated range' which is not a realistic consumption on a road trip. Drive fast and in cold temperature and your consumption is 30% higher.
All of a sudden your real range is down from 310 to 139 miles. This isn't some number game I'm constructing. I have done aprox 100k miles on road trips in my Tesla in all kinds of weather. All the things mentioned above are based on experience.

Bottom line, a significantly larger battery is definitely a big plus for road trips. On our annual trip from Los Angeles to Minneapolis, I drive 2000 miles one way and have to stop 19 times to charge in my old 85. In a Model 3 LR it would be 13 charging stops.

 

[DocZ]

I’ve done lots of long distance electric driving (65k miles in two years) and can say definitively I’ve never been frustrated by having to stop too frequently. 335 miles in a 100D is basically max human bladder range as it is.

The fact that each of those stops needs to be 30-60 minutes instead of 10-15 is far more “annoying” to me in the scheme of things.

I frequently drive 330 miles (every other weekend in fact). A Model S does not make that drive on a full charge due to real life driving significantly decreasing the actual range. I take my ICE car and make that drive without stopping. A Model S with a new battery pack needs to be able to do that.

 

[emmz0r]

I’m pretty sure the charge speed is battery-limited already. Eg. The 75 charges slower than the 100 pack etc etc.

The 75 pack is 350V while the 100 pack has 400V. Could be that. Same amperage on that voltage = more kW for the 400V.

With a lot more amperage, won't that wreak havoc on the existing packs? What use are V3 chargers for at this point then?

 

[f205v]

IMHO the definitive battery pack should be 200kwh, i.e. double of actual max capacity.
This should give a theoretical range of 335*2= 670 miles (1.075 km), which will probably mean a real life average of 500 miles (800 km)
Such a distance is the real limit for 99,99% of the drivers out there without stopping for a night of rest, and then you will have a full night to recharge (home or destination charger). Obviously there will be cases where 500 miles will not be enough for a single day travel, but in that case supercharger will be the right place to top up what you will need to complete the journey.

So, as I see it, the 2 main factors to a real transition of the masses to EVs are:
1) a real life average range of 500+ miles
2) a widespread availability of home/destination chargers

As for all things, we will not be there from one day to the other, it will take time and the transition to EVs will move in pace with it.

 

[mongo]

IMHO the definitive battery pack should be 200kwh, i.e. double of actual max capacity.
This should give a theoretical range of 335*2= 670 miles (1.075 km), which will probably mean a real life average of 500 miles (800 km)
Such a distance is the real limit for 99,99% of the drivers out there without stopping for a night of rest, and then you will have a full night to recharge (home or destination charger). Obviously there will be cases where 500 miles will not be enough for a single day travel, but in that case supercharger will be the right place to top up what you will need to complete the journey.

So, as I see it, the 2 main factors to a real transition of the masses to EVs are:
1) a real life average range of 500+ miles
2) a widespread availability of home/destination chargers

As for all things, we will not be there from one day to the other, it will take time and the transition to EVs will move in pace with it.

Another benefit is that the supercharge rate for twice the pack can be twice as fast (assuming equipment and cooling are capable). So stops can take half as long, or occur half as often.

 

[Olle]

Must said battery density increases each year. I think he referenced 4%??
the 100KW vehicles have been out for 2 years but they weren't based on better density, only more cells. Same cells as the 90 which came out over 3 years ago. Even with an improvement of 1% per year they could feasibly do a 105.

I think it would spur sales a bit, take the car to a milestone 350 miles/charge and show dominance in a field where Porsche, Audi, Rivian, Jaguar are coming in.

I know they used some of the advancement ability and shifted to less Cobalt but they compromised charge speed & density for cost. In a high end version of the car there is margin to increase cost a bit.

Model S/X 75 and 100 are the last Tesla vehicles that will name the battery size, IMHO. Tesla will give their cars long-range options, like the Model 3, from now on. Tesla was a brand for us geeks when the first cars came out, kWh makes no sense to the masses now. Just like horsepower makes no sense to the masses, now that all cars have more than enough of it. I can guarantee you most mass market customers of VW, Toyota and so on have no clue how many hp or liter their cars have. What matters to people is how fast and how far. Another benefit of stating range is that they can gradually reduce the battery size as efficiency improves.

 

[Wyomingtim]

Model S/X 75 and 100 are the last Tesla vehicles that will name the battery size, IMHO. Tesla will give their cars long-range options, like the Model 3, from now on. Tesla was a brand for us geeks when the first cars came out, kWh makes no sense to the masses now. Just like horsepower makes no sense to the masses, now that all cars have more than enough of it. I can guarantee you most mass market customers of VW, Toyota and so on have no clue how many hp or liter their cars have. What matters to people is how fast and how far. Another benefit of stating range is that they can gradually reduce the battery size as efficiency improves.

Well said.

 

[lookmtb]

310 miles of range seem plenty on paper, but that's not reality. First, no Tesla actually has the range it shows. The rated range is calculated based on the entire battery capacity, but Tesla cuts you off at aprox 8% to protect the battery for deep discharge. So you have 8% less range than EPA rated. It hides it by counting down the rated miles faster to end up at 0 when it actually is 8%. TO the user is looks like you are at 0% and zero miles. It's completely hidden to the user. (I have done extensive tests to confirm this)

Tesla does indeed have a buffer at the bottom of their charge to protect the battery as you say, but that does not effect EPA range and should not be subtracted from the range indication.

How The EPA Rates Electric Cars: Range, Efficiency & More

"An electric vehicle is tested after being parked overnight, and with the battery fully charged. It’s then operated through successive city or highway driving cycles until the battery becomes depleted. It’s then brought back to a full charge. A technician determines the vehicle’s energy consumption by dividing the kilowatt-hours of energy needed to replenish the battery by the number of miles driven. The latter is also used to determine an EV’s estimated operating range on a charge."

with the method described there is no way of fudging the numbers in the way you suggest.

now of course we all know the EPA driving cycle isn't very indicative of real world driving (and should really really really be updated) but that's another issue.

Also, from my own anecdotal experience pulling CAN data from mine and others Model S's there is a different number between total battery capacity and useable capacity. Rated Range always lines up with useable, but never total.

 

[David99]

Tesla does indeed have a buffer at the bottom of their charge to protect the battery as you say, but that does not effect EPA range and should not be subtracted from the range indication.

I and other people have data that proves it. Jason Hughes also hinted at this in a discussion here. You can drive exactly at the EPA rated range energy consumption and will definitely not get the rate miles. The car hides it cleverly over the entire discharge duration.

 

[lookmtb]

@David99 do you have a link to that thread or data? I'd love to read more on this topic.

Thank you.

 

[David99]

@David99 do you have a link to that thread or data? I'd love to read more on this topic.

Thank you.

I have to look. It was across several threads. It was started by another user. I was very skeptical and started doing my own testing. I'll try to find it when I have time.

 

[JohnnyG]

... Tesla cuts you off at aprox 8% to protect the battery for deep discharge... It hides it by counting down the rated miles faster to end up at 0 when it actually is 8%. ... minus the 8% Tesla reserves...

I and other people have data that proves it. Jason Hughes also hinted at this in a discussion here...

If you have used a scan tool interface on the CAN bus, and if you know of Jason Hughes, then you would know that the Tesla buffer is 4%.

 

[xyeahtony]

310 miles of range seem plenty on paper, but that's not reality. First, no Tesla actually has the range it shows. The rated range is calculated based on the entire battery capacity, but Tesla cuts you off at aprox 8% to protect the battery for deep discharge. So you have 8% less range than EPA rated. It hides it by counting down the rated miles faster to end up at 0 when it actually is 8%. TO the user is looks like you are at 0% and zero miles. It's completely hidden to the user. (I have done extensive tests to confirm this)

Now let's look at a real driving situation. You don't want to run the battery all the way down. It's risky. I think aiming for 10% safety buffer is reasonable so we need to subtract 10%. You also don't want to charge beyond 80% as the charge rate drops too much wasting time. Add these up and you are only using 70% of the capacity, minus the 8% Tesla reserves. Now all of that is 'rated range' which is not a realistic consumption on a road trip. Drive fast and in cold temperature and your consumption is 30% higher.
All of a sudden your real range is down from 310 to 139 miles. This isn't some number game I'm constructing. I have done aprox 100k miles on road trips in my Tesla in all kinds of weather. All the things mentioned above are based on experience.

Bottom line, a significantly larger battery is definitely a big plus for road trips. On our annual trip from Los Angeles to Minneapolis, I drive 2000 miles one way and have to stop 19 times to charge in my old 85. In a Model 3 LR it would be 13 charging stops.

Plenty of people have reported getting 300+ miles on their 100Ds. Plenty of people have reported getting 300+ miles on their Model 3 LRs.

I have a 100D and i can definitely drive more than 140 miles in one charge, even in freezing new england weather.