Model S March 2011 update

[dsm363]

Wow, the 300 mile pack (being available first) came out of left field. At this point there seems like nothing stopping me from buying one day one. :love:

Yeah! I was told a long time ago that the 300 mile pack probably wouldn't be available on launch and would have to get it 6 months or more later than delivery. What an awesome surprise.

 

[ckessel]

Yes this is all contrived.
But I do believe there will be a used battery market in some form.

I don't have a citation, but I seem to recall Tesla saying battery degradation was saddled shaped. Meaning, fast up front degradation, levels off for years, then fast end of life degradation. If that's true, then a used battery with 200 mile capacity may have a lot shorter life left in it than a new one of the same capacity, which would significantly affect the used battery's value.

Even if it didn't, I'd have to wonder about prices. Even in markets like Books and CDs where degradation of the used product is minimal to it's functionality, new prices are 2-3x that of a used version. Totally different industries and price points, but I think much of the drop in value of used items is customer perception which is going to be somewhat industry agnostic.

 

[qwk]

With all due respect to qwk, as I certainly share his less monetary motivations for a Model S, it sounds like the money isn't nearly as big a deal to him as it is to some of the others of us. I would have never, ever considered a $50k car, much less an $80k, before the Model S. The Model S is a major stretch for me. We're talking, with that sort of money, I could pay my house off 4-5 years earlier if I just keep my current ICE or bought a sensible slightly used ICE.

I'm certainly not filthy rich as you indicate. I have never purchased a brand new car before simply because cars depreciate too fast.

At this point in my life, I would not buy a new car at this price level, and will probably make a few sacrifices to do so. It will be definately worth it as the oil monopoly is going to try and milk everyone until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the earth.



With that being said, I still havent decided which battery I will get. There isn't enough info out yet (performance difference, second battery upfront availability etc). Since Tesla sells a 56kwh roadster battery replacement for
$12k, which means if there is a possibility to get an S replacement battery close to the same size(230 pack) for around the same price, I would just get that rather than upgrading a 160 mile battery. The 70 mile difference is not really worth the $10k extra to me as you can get that in less than 2hrs of charging with a nema14-50 which are everywhere.

 

[Doug_G]

I don't have a citation, but I seem to recall Tesla saying battery degradation was saddled shaped.

True, but I'm not certain that's what we're seeing. I've collected a few Roadster logs for software testing, and the older ones don't start dropping in range until 20k to 30k miles.

Mind you, this information should be taken with a big grain (lump) of salt. This may be more of an indication of changes made to the range calculation in firmware updates.

 

[vfx]

. Since Tesla sells a 56kwh roadster battery replacement for
$12k,

And
Lloyd

I believe that we can make an educated guess at the cost of a 300 mile battery at the time of replacement (5 to 7 years or more). Tesla currently will sell you a roadster battery 54KWh at $12,000 PV when it needs to be repalced.

I don't think this is right. Tesla will sell you in advance a warranty for battery replacement for $12k but to TTBOMK, the price of a new roadster pack is closer to $30K.

 

[Lloyd]

VFK
Yes, and according to the article posted earlier, the cost of the 300 mile pack in the S is 55% of the cost of the car. Tesla will sell you a replacement now because they know that the cost of batteries will go down, and they have the use of your $$ until the time that your battery needs replacing!

 

[richkae]

I have no way to prove it, but my gut tells me that Tesla's cost on a Roadster pack is already under $12k.

 

[kgb]

option 1: after 5/7/10 years and $20K, I have a 5/7/10 year old 300 mi pack.
Option 2: after 5/7/10 years and $15k, I have a new 300 mi pack.

I choose option 2.

You are missing part of the comparison:
Option 1: You start with a new 300 mile pack (-$20,000), after 5/7/10 years you have 70% of a 300 mile pack (or 210 mile pack)
Option 2: You start with a new 160 mile pack ($0), after 5/7/10 years you have (-$15,000) and a new 300 mile pack.

So for the 1st 5/7/10 years with option 2 is worse than the used pack in option 1.

I bring this up not because I am advocating one option over the other (I haven't decided yet.) I am only trying to point out that your logic is flawed.

 

[qwk]

And
Lloyd
I don't think this is right. Tesla will sell you in advance a warranty for battery replacement for $12k but to TTBOMK, the price of a new roadster pack is closer to $30K.

There is no way in the world Tesla would gamble on prices coming down that much if the pack cost $30k right now.

They already said that their costs are below $200kwh.

 

[Todd Burch]

You are missing part of the comparison:
Option 1: You start with a new 300 mile pack (-$20,000), after 5/7/10 years you have 70% of a 300 mile pack (or 210 mile pack)
Option 2: You start with a new 160 mile pack ($0), after 5/7/10 years you have (-$15,000) and a new 300 mile pack.

So for the 1st 5/7/10 years with option 2 is worse than the used pack in option 1.

I bring this up not because I am advocating one option over the other (I haven't decided yet.) I am only trying to point out that your logic is flawed.

No flaw in my logic--I get it. I didn't say one was better than the other...just that I choose option 2 because I can't afford the 300 mi pack *plus* the options I want all up front (actually, I could afford it but the wife doesn't want to see me spend that much money). So option 1 is off the table. I'm actually leaning toward option 3--the 230 pack. I have a 70 mile daily commute and the 160mi pack won't give me much cushion in range after a few years of real-world driving).

 

[qwk]

You are missing part of the comparison:
Option 1: You start with a new 300 mile pack (-$20,000), after 5/7/10 years you have 70% of a 300 mile pack (or 210 mile pack)
Option 2: You start with a new 160 mile pack ($0), after 5/7/10 years you have (-$15,000) and a new 300 mile pack.

So for the 1st 5/7/10 years with option 2 is worse than the used pack in option 1.

I bring this up not because I am advocating one option over the other (I haven't decided yet.) I am only trying to point out that your logic is flawed.

I think he is trying to say that the first pack has less range, but you get an X number of miles from the car for free. Then you buy a pack for an $X amount and that costs you close to the same $$ as you would spend on the initial upgrade with the added benefit of more range.

 

[Todd Burch]

I think he is trying to say that the first pack has less range, but you get an X number of miles from the car for free. Then you buy a pack for an $X amount and that costs you close to the same $$ as you would spend on the initial upgrade with the added benefit of more range.

Thanks qwk...that's the benefit I was seeing for my personal situation but wasn't explaining it well. I guess I'm just using a lower range pack to bide my time until the larger range packs drop in price-- as long as I have enough ideal miles to feel comfortable, the longer range pack can wait.

 

[Todd Burch]

Hehe, didn't see it at first but that "All Cars Electric" article that Dpielow posted mentions my line of thinking:

"Battery packs are bound to drop in price in the coming years. If Tesla offers an upgrade route for battery packs then perhaps the smart move would be to buy a smaller range Model S for now, upgrading to a larger range battery pack when the cost per mile has dropped significantly."

 

[qwk]

Another thing to consider is that if in the near future quick chargers become common, the need for bigger packs diminishes.

IMO, Tesla should have made the 230 pack standard even if it made the car cost a bit more. It's going to be a tough choice with 3 different packs to choose from.

From a business standpoint, this configuration of packs will make Tesla the most $$$ though.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Another thing to consider is that if in the near future quick chargers become common, the need for bigger packs diminishes.

IMO, Tesla should have made the 230 pack standard even if it made the car cost a bit more. It's going to be a tough choice with 3 different packs to choose from.

That's going to go counter to their goal of making Model S more affordable though. There's still going to be a significant market that doesn't need that much range. The 160 pack will still be larger than pretty much what all competitors are offering.

 

[Cobos]

That's going to go counter to their goal of making Model S more affordable though. There's still going to be a significant market that doesn't need that much range. The 160 pack will still be larger than pretty much what all competitors are offering.

Yes the 160 mile pack is enough to get us to our cabin at the lake and then tricklecharge so I get back. The optimistic 100 mile range of all the other cars out now is just not enough to be able to do this comfortably with a bit of wear on the pack. For me the $57400 with the European price addition of around $25000 is stretching my budget might thin. I will only look at the 160 mile pack since I simply can't afford the 300 pack.
So for customers like me this makes a lot of sense. And I do feel that many of these early adopters are customers who before never have bought a new car since it's a bad idea from an economy standpoint.

Cobos

 

[Eberhard]

Very little is known about the lifetime and max. cycle of the new cell except that Panasonic claims better performance. But the pack has a calendar lifetime too. I estimate the 80% degradation for the 160miles pack at 80.000 mile. For the 300miles around 200.000miles. Only those, whose expected milages for the next 8-10years are within this numbers has a choice to made. For the cost: the real cost (except the 300miles version, those cell may be more expensive) are the packaging cost with Assembling, BMS and cooling. The cells are inexpensive. I estimate the calculated prices of 160miles at $30.000 for 230/300miles at $40.000/$50.000. The smallest pack will have the highest cost of ownership/milage.

 

[Todd Burch]

Here's another way to think about the 300 mile pack...I'd like to hear your feedback. (I'm going to use U.S. cost, including the federal tax rebate here...others will need to make adjustments). There's a little bit of speculation here, but hopefully not too much:

Let's compare a BMW 535i (starting at $50k in the US) versus the Model S (also starting around $50k after the tax rebate).

For the Model S, consider the base car (no options) with the 300 mi pack upgrade:

If the pack is at 70% after 100,000 miles, as some predictions (including Tesla's) show, that means I have 210 ideal miles left (about 168 real-world driving miles, if you consider real-world mileage to be about 80% of ideal miles).

I'm guessing perhaps that my pack might be at 50% at 150,000 miles. That means 150 ideal miles, or about 120 real-world driving miles at 80% of ideal miles).

120 real-world driving miles is the bottom of my personal limit, so I'm going to consider that I can keep a 300 mi pack for 150,000 miles in this case.

At 300 Wh/mi + 15% for charging inefficiency, that means I'm using about 345 Wh/mi to drive. 150,000 miles @ 345 Wh/mi = 51.750 MWh of electricity.

At 15 cents/kWh (25% more than my rate here--to account for increasing electricity costs), that's a total electricity cost of $7,762 for 150,000 miles.

So for the base Model S with 300mi pack upgrade, I get 150,000 miles for $20,000 (pack upgrade) + $7,762 (electricity) for a total of $27,762.

For the BMW 535i (which gets about 25 mpg average), consider that I also get no options (just like the Model S)--so the car itself costs about the same.

Assuming gas is at $4 per gallon average over the span of that 150,000 miles (about 10 years for me--which might be a conservative price), that same 150,000 mi costs (150,000 mi * $4/gal) / 25 mpg = $24,000.

So for the base BMW, I get 150,000 mi for $24,000. Not too far from the Model S.

Throw in lower maintenance cost, savings to the environment, convenience (no need to go to the gas station), the decent chance of getting at least a little bit of money back by turning in a used battery, and you probably come out ahead with the 300 mi pack...no?

Again, this all assumes I can hold 50% capacity by 150k mi, which is of course a question mark at this point.

Thoughts?

 

[Todd Burch]

Considering my minimum range is about 120 real-world miles, I can follow the same calculations with the 230 mi pack:

230 mi @ 100,000 miles = 230 * 70% = 161 ideal miles, or about 128.8 real-world miles...so I can get 100,000 miles of useful life out of the 230 mi pack.

100,000 mi * 345 Wh/mi = 34.5 MWh of electricity. 34,500 kWh * $0.15/kWh = $5175.

So for the Model S 230 mi pack and 100,000 miles, I get $10,000 (230 mi pack upgrade) + $5175 in electricity = $15,175.

For the BMW, (100,000 mi * $4/gal) / (25 mpg) = $16,000 in fuel costs.

So for the 230 mi pack, you come out AHEAD of the BMW.


The 160 mi pack gives me 128 real-world miles in range mode right out of the gate, so it's not enough for my personal needs.

Based on the above, the 230 mi pack seems like the best deal for me...unless the 300 mi chemistry has a longer life.

 

[richkae]

Over the last 6 years U.S. average gasoline is up 11% per year.
Over the last 10 year span it went up about 9% per year.
Over the last 20 years it has gone up about 6% per year.
At 6% gasoline averages $4.75/gallon over 10 years ( starting at $3.40 - prices from a couple weeks ago )
At 9% it averages $5.72/gallon
At 11% it averages $6.52/gallon

( premium gas for will at least be 20c more )