Model S March 2011 update

[benji4]

My typical standard mode range with snow tires and cold weather this winter has consistently been between 110 and 120 miles. I couldn't imagine life with a 160 mile pack.

Yes, really seems like the $10k jump from 160 to 230 is pretty much a neccessity unless the car is really just used around town. But then it's just another $10k from there to get to 300, so..... I'd wager that most people opt for the 300 mi pack. I think it's like the difference between the Roadster and Roadster Sport. "Well, it's only $20,000 for that extra 0.2 sec. off the 0-100 time, and sometimes I like to accelerate quickly, so...". And people end up buying the Sport. The marketing people at Tesla are sure clever, and that's a good thing because I'm sure we all want them to stay in business!

 

[kvietor]

Suck it up guys. :biggrin: Its still almost a year and a half away. The price is a little steep, but I've been socking away as much cash as possilble. A few less trips to Dunkin Donuts, a couple more garage sales, and well hell, the grandkids can wait another year or two for their college funds. lol

Seriously tho... I can't wait to get mine. And I'll do whatever it takes. I'm just glad the wife is onboard with this. I know it'll never pay for itself but I can't wait to snub my nose at the oil companies.

 

[stopcrazypp]

In case there is still confusion about calendar life vs. cycle life, I'll try my best to clarify.

Calendar life: the life of a battery measured in time (even if you don't use it and just store it).
This depends on average temperature and state of charge (SOC). The higher these are, the shorter the calendar life (caveat: some chemistries are less affected by SOC and have wider operating temperature ranges). This explains why "Storage Mode" in the Roadster is at lower SOC and why Tesla packs have liquid cooling to keep the battery at 25C. Tesla quotes calendar life at 7 years for the Roadster; I would expect the same for the Model S since it will use similar cells.

Cycle life: the FULL cycles a battery can last using 0-100-0% cycling @ 25 Celsius & 1C discharge (1C means using 1 hour to fully discharge the battery, 0.5C means using 2 hours, etc.)
This means cycling 0-50-0% two times is still counted as one full cycle, not two. Put another way, charging 0-50-0% only counts as half a cycle. However, the impact of charging partial cycles at lower max SOC is less than cycling 0-100-0% all the time (this is related to the calendar life part, where you want to keep average SOC over the life of the battery low). That is why Tesla has a "Standard Mode" (~10-90%) and why the Leaf offers a "80%" mode that is used during typical charging.

The relevance to the Model S is that since lithium cobalt 18650 batteries have a cycle life of ~500 cycles, you can easily estimate expected life in terms of miles using 0-100-0% cycling:
160 = 160miles/full cycle * 500 full cycles = 80,000 miles
230 = 115,000 miles
300 = 150,000 miles (**note: this pack uses different & newer chemistry so this estimate may not apply**)
You may get better than these numbers if you mainly charge in Standard Mode or even Storage Mode. You may also get better than these numbers if your average discharge rate is lower than 1C. Both will be easier to do with a larger battery pack.

End of life (EOL): Different manufacturers will define it differently, but according to Tesla, the industry generally defines it as 70-80% capacity left.

 

[AnOutsider]

Thanks for that crazy, cleared a lot up. Now the debate can begin again with fresh perspective haha

 

[Kevin Harney]

Probably nobody does that, but taking that same argument, the 160 mile battery doesn't seem like enough for any serious driving. Charge it in normal mode and perhaps you get 130 miles ideal range, and a bit of spirited driving maybe gets you down to 100. So you are almost starting to get down into LEAF territory there. The 230 mile pack is right in line with what you get with the Roadster and it seems like it might be hard to be happy with less than that especially if you already drive a Roadster.

No not really the LEAF is the 100 mile equivalent of the Model S 160 mile pack so in normal mode it would get 75 miles and with spirited driving (if that is possible in a LEAF LOL) probably down to 50 miles .... Make apples and apples comparison.

 

[benji4]

No not really the LEAF is the 100 mile equivalent of the Model S 160 mile pack so in normal mode it would get 75 miles and with spirited driving (if that is possible in a LEAF LOL) probably down to 50 miles .... Make apples and apples comparison.

Okay, point taken, but I did say "almost starting to get down into LEAF territory", so not quite a direct comparison. I'd take the 160 mi Model S over the 100 mi LEAF any day of the week! I just think that if somebody has $60,000 to spend on car already, may as well cough up another 10K to get all kinds of huge benefits. The difference between the 160 and 230 pack is a REAL 70 miles, plus more power, plus a lot longer life. Way better investment than a $10,000 exterior carbon fiber accent package!

 

[mattjs33]

Wow, just read through this thread, and now my head hurts. Too much math. You guys are serious about this stuff.

What occurs to me with all this number crunching is that there are some who are desperately trying to come to terms with and justify a 300 mile Model S at very near $80,000 before taxes and Tesla's notoriously expensive options. Don't forget, the $7500 is a TAX CREDIT, you still have to pay full price. Funny how people distort that into reducing the price of the car.

And the 160 mile option will not be available at launch, so I guess those reservation holders will have to pony up more dough or wait longer for their cars?

The Model S might very well be a great car and perform exactly as promised, but it's clear that a Tesla will remain, for the time being, a plaything for the wealthy.

 

[Eberhard]

The solution is very simple: Invest today $50.000 in Tesla stock. If the Model S is as successful as i believe. In the time, the Model S is on public roads and available for delivery, the share price will skyrocked. With the profit, you can easily buy the Signature Edition.

 

[benji4]

The Model S might very well be a great car and perform exactly as promised, but it's clear that a Tesla will remain, for the time being, a plaything for the wealthy.

Well, the Roadster might be considered a plaything for the wealthy, but the Model S is an incredibly functional car for the pretty wealthy.

 

[benji4]

The solution is very simple: Invest today $50.000 in Tesla stock. If the Model S is as successful as i believe. In the time, the Model S is on public roads and available for delivery, the share price will skyrocked. With the profit, you can easily buy the Signature Edition.

Excellent idea! And if you are wrong and the investment halves... you can still pick up a new Prius for 25k!

 

[vfx]

... Don't forget, the $7500 is a TAX CREDIT, you still have to pay full price. Funny how people distort that into reducing the price of the car. ...

Good point the car taxes are significant. Though others have pointed out that they simply structure there finances to make sure they have that $7,500 deduction.
As I mentioned above states like California (for now) add an additional $5,000 (that comes as a check) for full buying full-electrics
Roadster owners get another $10,000 discount on the S
Other states have different discounts like no DMV fees and HOV driving which see as a time=money discount.

 

[ckessel]

Don't forget, the $7500 is a TAX CREDIT, you still have to pay full price. Funny how people distort that into reducing the price of the car.

Unless you're paying cash out of pocket for the car, it's a somewhat irrelevant distinction. I'll get an extra $7,500 on my car loan, then dump the $7,500 against the car principal when the tax refund hits. All I lose is the interest on that $7,500 for however many months it takes to get the tax refund.

 

[Sparrow]

Maybe getting off topic, but isn't the $7,500 Tax Credit subject to the Federal Alernative Minimum Tax and thus some people might not get all or any of the tax credit for the purchase of a Roadster or S?

 

[donauker]

Maybe getting off topic, but isn't the $7,500 Tax Credit subject to the Federal Alernative Minimum Tax and thus some people might not get all or any of the tax credit for the purchase of a Roadster or S?

No it is not subject to AMT.

 

[donauker]

Roadster owners get another $10,000 discount on the S

Wow, didn't know this. Is this in writing anywhere?

 

[mattjs33]

Unless you're paying cash out of pocket for the car, it's a somewhat irrelevant distinction. I'll get an extra $7,500 on my car loan, then dump the $7,500 against the car principal when the tax refund hits. All I lose is the interest on that $7,500 for however many months it takes to get the tax refund.

I see what you are saying here, assuming the refund is put towards the car. I'm sure lots of people would be tempted to use it for other things, like they typically do with their refunds.

For a person in the financial position to spend nearly $100,000 on an automobile, the tax credit is probably not only irrelevant, but ridiculous. At a lower price point, however, it becomes very relevant indeed. Tesla is by far the only one guilty of this marketing tactic. Chevrolet, Nissan, Think, Wheego, CODA, are all saying that their car is X dollars after the federal rebate. For an average buyer looking to take the plunge into an electric car in that price range, the $7500 has a big effect in whether they can even get the financing, and what their monthly payment will be. So they will be told the bottom line price is X, when they have mentally been figuring a lot less. Yeah they get the tax credit, but only once. So a family that bought a $40,000 car because it was sold to them as if it were a $32,500 car, still has the larger payments for the next few years of a $40,000 car. For people at that level, it can be a stretch.

So it's not really the $7500 lopped off the top that these manufacturers make it out to be.

 

[bolosky]

So it's not really the $7500 lopped off the top that these manufacturers make it out to be.

True enough. However, the President's budget proposal includes switching it from a tax credit to an instant time-of-purchase rebate so it would really become an effective lowering of the price. Now, whether this makes it through congress is a different matter.

 

[ckessel]

At a lower price point, however, it becomes very relevant indeed....the $7500 has a big effect in whether they can even get the financing, and what their monthly payment will be.

True. I was going to argue that typically if you're at the edge of what a bank would loan you, then you're probably pretty far beyond what you should be borrowing anyway. But you're right, on the low end EV's, that $7500 is a very significant portion of the price and could come into play.

The thing I don't like about it as a credit is that it's something that's tilted against lower incomes (yea, what else is new in our society). If someone doesn't play $7500 in federal taxes, they can't get the full value of the credit. The point of the credit, in theory, is that the government believes it's in the national interest to promote EV purchases. Not that it's extra good for rich or poor, but that's good in general, and so I think the credit should instead be a rebate that's income agnostic. Bolosky noted that's already being attempted in congress, but, well, let's face it, every republican is going to rail against it (again, what else is new).

 

[Lloyd]

Roadster owners get another $10,000 discount on the S
.

Does this apply to used purchases as well, or did you have to buy it new from the factory?

 

[vfx]

I don't know the exact details Lloyd.

Anyone else?