How much more would you pay for a 93 kWh battery

[David99]

Imagine Tesla would have a battery that offers a 10% higher capacity than the 85. Same size, same weight, just 10% more range. How much would you be willing to pay for a 93 kWh battery instead of the 85 when ordering a new car?

 

[KJD]

Where is the option for zero?

The car is already overweight, no reason to make it worse.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

There are rumors of bigger batteries coming soon?

 

[jerry33]

I'd expect the price to remain the same as batteries get cheaper and more energy dense over time. I'd also expect the next battery to be between 110 and 125 kWh.

 

[David99]

I'd expect the price to remain the same as batteries get cheaper and more energy dense over time. I'd also expect the next battery to be between 110 and 125 kWh.

Totally agree! I'm just trying to get an idea how much 10% more range/capacity would be worth to people now if they had the choice to order it as an option.

 

[cpa]

If we assume that the increase in range is linear to the increase in battery capacity, then a standard S85 will go from ~260 miles of range to ~285. Superchargers appear to be spaced 100-160 miles apart. Any gain in time by skipping a Supercharger would likely be offset by a longer stop at the next Supercharger. I could see a slight advantage to those who live in frigid winter areas so that they could gain an effective 20 miles of range, but this may not be enough to warrant the additional cost.

I believe a larger battery will be better for two types of owners: Those who want to drive as far and as fast as they can with minimal stops, and those who like to take the secondary highways and arterial roads to access locations that do not have much charging infrastructure. Twenty-five additional miles really do not address either of those two groups. One hundred miles of additional range might be a more pragmatic starting point. :smile:

 

[jerry33]

If we assume that the increase in range is linear to the increase in battery capacity, then a standard S85 will go from ~260 miles of range to ~285. Superchargers appear to be spaced 100-160 miles apart. Any gain in time by skipping a Supercharger would likely be offset by a longer stop at the next Supercharger. I could see a slight advantage to those who live in frigid winter areas so that they could gain an effective 20 miles of range, but this may not be enough to warrant the additional cost.

The larger the battery is the longer it will charge at very high rates, so charging to 200 miles of range will be significantly quicker with a larger battery. You wouldn't skip an SC, but you would stay a shorter amount of time at each one. Also, even after the 2016 plan completes (probably in 2017), there will still be many routes that won't be covered by the SC network without going out of your way. Not even one state highway is covered by SCs.

Bear in mind no one needs a 700 mile gas tank either, but many vehicles have them. The hypothesis as to why is because people want to stop when they want to, not when the car wants to. Tesla owners are freed of the trip to the gas station during local driving, so only on trips do they have to stop to charge, and the shorter that time can be made, the happier everyone will be.

 

[Rheazombi]

Quote from Mr. Zombi: "I would pay more for 10% more range than for autopilot."

As people who take long, meandering road trips, often with no destination in mind, I have to agree with him. I would gladly make use of an extra 25 miles of range.

 

[N4HHE]

85 to 93 is relatively insignificant next to 60 to 85.

 

[tomas]

Where is the option for zero?

The car is already overweight, no reason to make it worse.

Hmmm... david offered choice in his poll of "not worth it, I'd go with the 85", which means you would not pay extra. He also specified "same size, same weight". Or, maybe I'm just reading with the 3D glasses that let me see the secret words!