Model S Plaid Battery Details, sourced from EPA Docs, Vehicle Observations, & Supercharging/Charging data

[AlanSubie4Life]

The 100kWh is consistent with the EPA result for the LR (~101kWh) but a little too low to be consistent with the preliminary Monroney in the OP (~103kWh). But 100kWh would make sense, since the degradation threshold is 96kWh right now (your battery can currently degrade to 96kWh before showing any loss of rated miles). Still a quite large gap but more normal.

The original Monroney might have been a guess but I am still surprised it is off by that much (3%). I generally expected the error might go the other way because I assumed 88.5% efficient charging. And thought maybe higher voltage pack might have helped slightly with that.

Anyway we will see. It does make sense with a small reduction in losses with the new high voltage pack, etc., that you might make it slightly smaller and lighter.

 

[rhuber]

It is also likely more dense and lighter if the rumors that it is built like the 3/Y pack are true. Having those individual modules was good design for the time, and great for repairability, but how often have you heard of an S owner having a single module replaced? Gluing the pack together has density/thermal benefits and is honestly the thing I'd been waiting for to move to an S, so that it was able to charge like the 3/Y.

 

[GhostSkater]

It is also likely more dense and lighter if the rumors that it is built like the 3/Y pack are true. Having those individual modules was good design for the time, and great for repairability, but how often have you heard of an S owner having a single module replaced? Gluing the pack together has density/thermal benefits and is honestly the thing I'd been waiting for to move to an S, so that it was able to charge like the 3/Y.

For me it didn't even make sense, even on Model 3, you put a new module on a old pack you will have a bunch of headaches with cells staying in balance and all that

 

[rhuber]

For me it didn't even make sense, even on Model 3, you put a new module on a old pack you will have a bunch of headaches with cells staying in balance and all that

I guess it may have also just been for manufacturability. The modules are mostly identical and can be lifted by a human.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Motortrend Review they say it's a 100kWh pack

The 100kWh

I guess after consideration, I still tend to think we're going to see capacities above 100kWh. Closer to 102-103kWh is still my guess. This number seems like it was just something Tesla threw out there and then Motortrend went and compared it to other known pack capacities.

Believe the Monroney! And it really does seem like roundtrip losses would have to be at least slightly lower with a higher voltage pack...I'm fairly sure they're not skimping on wiring size if the car needs to support 1500A or more. (That would mean a factor slightly higher than 0.885 in the predictive calculations.)

 

[LostWages]

All credit to Omarsultan.

@omarsultan shared a charging curve in this post: LINK

~123kW @ 60% tapered to ~50kW @ 90%

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

All credit to Omarsultan.

@omarsultan shared a charging curve in this post: LINK

~123kW @ 60% tapered to ~50kW @ 90%
View attachment 674537

Came here to post this, thanks.

Direct scaling of an optimal session (as described above, without the 17% added previously discussed) would have predicted 152kW for this session at 62% (115kW*103kWh/78kWh). Also it was (slightly) slower at 90% than the other vehicle reported.

But 123kW rather than 152kW isn't that bad. And it may not be a perfect session.

But to me this session looks like it is well inside the charging envelope.

 

[MarcG]

More details from the MotorTrend article (emphasis mine):

The battery pack was always the Achilles' heel of earlier Model S performance variants, so Tesla updated it significantly to take full advantage of the tri-motor system. It's slightly smaller than before (100 kWh on the Plaid versus about 104 kWh on the Model S Performance this car replaces), but Tesla focused its efforts on improving coolant and electrical current paths. The end goal is better thermal capacity, ensuring the Plaid can deliver sustained performance without overheating or power reduction. As an added bonus, Tesla engineers say the changes help the Model S battery pack charge quicker, too.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So, not exactly related, but some thoughts on what we might expect as far as efficiency improvements (obviously Plaid will be less efficient than the LR, though):

I'm cross posting this here, since I put it in the Blog post, and since I did look up the data it seemed good to keep it here. Again, this is not for the Plaid pack or the Plaid drivetrain, but the 2021 Model S LR presumably has the same battery pack and many of the same drivetrain characteristics of the Plaid (of course it will have only two motors, etc.).

----------------
It is useful to separate capacity issues (which can float around by a couple kWh from test article to test article, and confuse things by a couple %) from efficiency, and for that you have to look at the MPGe/ Wh/mi (and more importantly the RAW city and highway test results).

One direct comparison might be to the 2020 Model S Long Range (not the Plus).

In raw efficiency (before adjustment factor, so these AC numbers will be ~25% lower than one might expect (divide by 0.75), and help take the heat pump out of the equation for the new LR), that did:

2020 Model S Long Range:

City: 219 AC Wh/mi
Highway: 235 AC Wh/mi

June 2021 Model S Long Range:

City: 206 AC Wh/mi
Highway: 223 AC Wh/mi

That's the raw comparison, but you'd have to look at the tires equipped on each vehicle, etc., etc., to make it a valid comparison. No idea on that (can anyone state the exact tire type on the new LR and the old LR (not the Plus)?).

(BTW, for completeness: The 2020 Long Range Plus did: 205 AC Wh/mi and 218 AC Wh/mi)

So I think the new Model S LR looks pretty decent, 5% better, both city and highway, but this hinges on assuming it is equipped with good tires rather than ultra high efficiency tires. It's potentially an impressive result, for drivetrain & aero (note city is also 5% better) improvements.

Since these are AC numbers, potentially some of this could come from roundtrip efficiency improvements due to the higher pack voltage (have to wait for documents for that). That could even make a fixed pack size "appear" bigger because of reduced losses due to higher voltage, wiring in the pack, etc. Very confusing. Will be good to see how much they actually draw from the pack.

Furthermore, I think Tesla could "find" another 1-2% over the next 6-12 months, since they're working with a new motor (like they did with Model 3).

As expected, Monroney MPGe/Wh/mi shows about 8% improvement, not 5%, but that's because of the adjustment factor, which inflates results by 2-3% in this case:

 

[aerodyne]

So, some thoughts on what we might expect as far as efficiency improvements (obviously Plaid will be less efficient than the LR, though):

I'm cross posting this here, since I put it in the Blog post, and since I did look up the data it seemed good to keep it here. Again, this is not for the Plaid pack or the Plaid drivetrain, but the 2021 Model S LR presumably has the same battery pack and many of the same drivetrain characteristics of the Plaid (of course it will have only two motors, etc.).

----------------
It is useful to separate capacity issues (which can float around by a couple kWh from test article to test article, and confuse things by a couple %) from efficiency, and for that you have to look at the MPGe/ Wh/mi (and more importantly the RAW city and highway test results).

One direct comparison might be to the 2020 Model S Long Range (not the Plus).

In raw efficiency (before adjustment factor, so these AC numbers will be ~25% lower than one might expect (divide by 0.75), and help take the heat pump out of the equation for the new LR), that did:

2020 Model S Long Range:

City: 219 AC Wh/mi
Highway: 235 AC Wh/mi

June 2021 Model S Long Range:

City: 206 AC Wh/mi
Highway: 223 AC Wh/mi

That's the raw comparison, but you'd have to look at the tires equipped on each vehicle, etc., etc., to make it a valid comparison. No idea on that (can anyone state the exact tire type on the new LR and the old LR (not the Plus)?).

(BTW, for completeness: The 2020 Long Range Plus did: 205 AC Wh/mi and 218 AC Wh/mi)

So I think the new Model S LR looks pretty decent, 5% better, both city and highway, but this hinges on assuming it is equipped with good tires rather than ultra high efficiency tires. It's potentially an impressive result, for drivetrain & aero (note city is also 5% better) improvements.

Furthermore, I think Tesla could "find" another 1-2% over the next 6-12 months, since they're working with a new motor (like they did with Model 3).

As expected, Monroney MPGe/Wh/mi shows about 8% improvement, not 5%, but that's because of the adjustment factor, which inflates results by 2-3% in this case:

View attachment 674583

Great info...but for others reading, the efficiency improvements are single digits percentage wise, especially when you look at all important highway.

The increase in charging speed is much more, even quicker than an M3 it appears.

I think this will quickly kill off the competition as well as encourage folks to upgrade.

Even now, family complains how long it takes my nose cone car to SuC. Fortunately, there is now a solution.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The increase in charging speed is much more, even quicker than an M3 it appears.

Yep, looks like a beast. If the degradation threshold is set to 96kWh for the LR, that would mean a constant of 96kWh/405mi = 237Wh/mi.

So at 250kW it would already be ~1050 mi/hr. The fastest charging Model 3 has a 220Wh/mi constant, so at a 250kW charger will do ~1140mi/hr.

But when Model S goes higher, it won't even be close. And the average rate (more important than peak) is going to be awesome, too.

For those who haven't experienced these speeds on a road trip, it really does mean extremely little waiting on the car. On some trips which are carefully planned, you don't wait on the car at all.

efficiency improvements are single digits percentage wise, especially when you look at all important highway.

Yes. I think this is more relevant when it comes to assessing fundamentally how they are doing relative to the competition. And if it's 5% more efficient, all else being equal, it does mean 5% less time spent charging (maybe not exactly I guess).

 

[dark cloud]

Regarding the "innovation" in the pack - since it doesn't have 4680s, I guess that's an open question as to whether it's a "simple" cell re-arrangement (more series cells, fewer parallel cells), or whether they've tweaked cell chemistries too, etc. I'm sure they've improved the cooling system, density, cost, etc. as much as they can. But to me it seems more evolutionary rather than revolutionary (based on information so far - I could be wrong).

It is interesting that there are conflicting reports from attendees claiming that the cells are:
- 2170s with identical chesty to the current production 3 and Y. That one also claims that the 3 and Y have new chemistry also.
- 18650s unchanged from old S and X.
-18650's with new chemistry.

Everyone agrees that the pack design in new and saves 'lots of weight'
People seem quite certain of their conflicting data, although the YouTube contingent seems to be convincing everyone on TMC that they're 18650s.

Might they have introduced some ultra capacitors along with the 18650's?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Might they have introduced some ultra capacitors along with the 18650's?

I doubt it. I assume they want the car to be reliable, haha.

That one also claims that the 3 and Y have new chemistry also.

This part is true (resulting in ~5% capacity increase on the lucky vehicles). I think I heard something about even lower cobalt, but I don’t follow these details, and not sure the chemistry change directly resulted in the capacity increase, or they just made things more dense somehow. In any case the 2170s are more dense than they were.

 

[jbcarioca]

Might they have introduced some ultra capacitors along with the 18650's?

Probably not. It has since seemingly been made clear that 18650's are the form. Thus far it seems we have no clear indication of the specific chemistry.
It seems logical that there are design features that will adapt to front and rear castings and a structural battery pack sometime. It is logical to assume that a larger IDRA press, perhaps the 9000 on order might be required. We already know that it si no simple task to actually produce in high volumes, high precisions and uniform physical characteristics.

For future products we'll see this technology refined and expanded as soon as all the production, design and assembly quicks have been worked out.

My personal view is that quite a few of the differing Tesla employee comments are probably based on differing perspectives on how mature the production capabilities are for all these components. When coupling all of that with rapid factory buildout and expansion in Fremont (e.g. Lathrop, Sparks, Gigapresses), Shanghai, Berlin, Austin plus many suppliers and cell manufacturing etc. etc. the oddity is that there are not many more major problems.

Undoubtably the least challenging part of all this is the massive near-global Supercharger rollout. With production increases in Buffalo and new production in Shanghai is seems obvious that huge buildout will be coming in established markets and expansion to new ones. Not only is Supercharger demand growing at a rapid pace (I was told 45% growth 2020 months to 2021 months in US by a Supercharger staffer) but the technology is also accelerating, storage is being added and the odd installation has solar added too. We forget about this one, but this is the overwhelming condition precedent for entering new markets. Coming soon will be large markets such as Brazil and Mercosur, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc all of which will be large challenges for support especially including Superchargers. We ignore those issues, mostly, although they will be major challenges in areas where Tesla has had little or no experience.

Unless there are major surprises not anticipated we should see 2022 and 2023 have major increases in efficiency and quality control. Those four who are making financial forecasts are already building that in, I think. It seems to me we will continue to see some things arrive early and others late. There's nothing wrong with that but it is intensely frustrating when we're waiting for delivery of yet another magnificent innovation.

2022 and 2023 will certainly see new challenges with all the geographical expansion coupled with product range including Model 2. Probably Cybertruck, Semi and Roadster will finally come too, but I think all those other issues will generate more surprises, both good and bad.

 

[GhostSkater]

Might they have introduced some ultra capacitors along with the 18650's?

Ultra capacitors, at least with current and any near future tech makes no sense, specific and energy density are horrendous compared to batteries, you will always be better off taking the space and weight they would take and putting more batteries

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Nothing new here (matches the sticker in the OP) but there is a special new 2-in wheel version (not 21-inch!) of the Plaid on the fueleconomy.gov website! Going to be a hot seller. This still implies about 103kWh of capacity (probably in range of 101-105kWh).

Maybe this is the new Radio Flyer version of the vehicle?

Ride-On Tesla Toys for Kids | Radio Flyer

Made with authentic Tesla details, these ride-on cars offer a premium experience for little riders. Shop ride-on Tesla toys for all ages at Radio Flyer.

www.radioflyer.com

Seriously, I would expect Tesla website to soon convert to the “EPA est.” version of their range estimate. This seems like it may be final (until Tesla ekes out some efficiency improvements).

Compare to 96MPGe before. But remember the adjustment factor due to heat pump impact on 5-cycle results, which is part of the reason for the boost to the 101MPGe number. So the actual comparison is probably something like 96MPGe to 99MPGe, approximately. So a few % efficiency improvement, probably 3%. This does all assume equal AC charging round-trip efficiency though (and we won’t know that until we get the documents).

Just noticed this was on Electrek already. Normally I scoop them but not this time, haha. Anyway, they seem to be still stating the battery is smaller than before because of “reasons” (like “Tesla said” - which means Tesla said it was ~100kWh, which I take to mean it’s about 100kWh, not necessarily bigger or smaller than before). Other than the LR result I see no reason to believe it won’t be about 103kWh, though. 86.5% efficiency round-trip would be pretty poor. Has happened before though (see 2021 Model 3 Performance).

 

[MrHopsing]

Nothing new here (matches the sticker in the OP) but there is a special new 2-in wheel version (not 21-inch!) of the Plaid on the fueleconomy.gov website! Going to be a hot seller. This still implies about 103kWh of capacity (probably in range of 101-105kWh).

Checked the EPC and there's a 20" Zero-G wheels for the S, and some 305/30R20 tires. Guessing Cup 2 or something for a track package.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Checked the EPC and there's a 20" Zero-G wheels for the S, and some 305/30R20 tires. Guessing Cup 2 or something for a track package.

Yeah marginally more sane than 21” for the track I would assume.

But the EPA entry is for the 21”. Presumably 20” if they sell them will not get a separate rating since they will not be sold that way.

 

[aerodyne]

Plenty of vids showing the MS modules. Some are clownish, like Rich rebuilds, some are long winded, like Jack Ricard.

This is a short one to help those orient themselves with the existing MS pack:

 

[dark cloud]

This fellow has crunched some numbers, and is convinced that the pack has 4680's, despite everyone saying it doesn't.
Who is going to be the first in their new 2022 Model S to rip out their new pack and tear it apart to let us know the facts?