-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Next serious range increase?
- Thread starter carvana
- Start date
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Same, and likely not for years.
Battery day is coming next month (well, it was before Covid)- and we know Tesla was starting a tiny prototype build-our-own-batteries-not-the-panasonic-ones line right before all this blew up.
If they ARE announcing better/denser batteries the first place you will see them is the Plaid Model S coming (or was coming before Covid) fall of 2020.
Then the Plaid X and 2nd gen Roadster in 2021.
And maybe in the Semi and Cybertruck too since they badly need dense batteries.
After all THAT, maybe they'll have enough production to rev the Model 3/Y battery packs in 2-3 years.
Right now though? They've already got more range than anybody else on the market in the class, they have no need to add more battery right now, and plenty of need to add it elsewhere.
Not the kind of improvement you were thinking of, but in China, the rumor is that the low-range Model 3 will use a LFP battery, lithium-iron-phosphate.The chemistry is more stable than NMC, so less likely to thermal overload, and it's 20+% cheaper to make than a comparable sized NMC battery. What's the downside? It's bulkier, ~50% larger per comparable size, so it's commonly used in EV buses. But last Fall, several Chinese battery makers announced a new, smaller packaging (CTP) that's 20+% smaller. They can reduce the cooling compared to a NMC battery since the chemistry is more stable. Still bigger than a comparable NMC battery, but not quite so big.
So, the idea is that in the shortest range Model 3, Tesla could put in the physically larger LFP battery, and save alot of money. The LFP is also known as Cell-to-Pack, CTP, C2P. I think Elon recently mentioned CTP in some podcast interview. And, one of the battery mfrs that announced LFP CTP last Fall, was CATL, the battery supplier to Tesla in China.
If it's a success, I don't see why they wouldn't bring it to the US for the SR and SR+ models.
So, the idea is that in the shortest range Model 3, Tesla could put in the physically larger LFP battery, and save alot of money. The LFP is also known as Cell-to-Pack, CTP, C2P. I think Elon recently mentioned CTP in some podcast interview. And, one of the battery mfrs that announced LFP CTP last Fall, was CATL, the battery supplier to Tesla in China.
If it's a success, I don't see why they wouldn't bring it to the US for the SR and SR+ models.
Dr. J
Active Member
There have been incremental improvements in range:
For 2020, All Tesla Model 3 Versions Get New EPA Ratings
For 2020, All Tesla Model 3 Versions Get New EPA Ratings
I could see if Tesla does have a more advanced battery tech that is a big improvement (say 25% increase in energy for same weight/storage) there could be a chance they roll it out fleet wide within a year or so if it showing up in volume. (Essentially if it makes it to S/X... Roadster might not be a good indicator because cost could be basically uncontrolled and it wouldn’t be a huge issue for them because of the MSRP.)
I would suspect S/X would have the change over happen basically around the same time. Both those vehicles are limited volume anyway. S would just want to be the flagship with 400+ miles of range or 500 miles etc. X we probably would see more focus on 300+ miles while towing a boat or small camper, etc.
I think within that same year we would see Model 3 and Y adopt the new technology (assuming Y is in full swing with SR+, LR, and Performance versions) and I think it would roll out like this; SR+ adopts the LR pack and starts at ~300+ miles and then LR/Performance versions have the new technology and 375-400 miles of range. This would allow Tesla to keep the long range versions very attractive to regular cars when range came into play AND keep the standard range versions absolutely segment leaders compared to other manufacturers. It also would allow time to wind down production lines and any purchase agreements that were in place while also ramping up capacity of the new lines. (Roadster/S/X followed within months or maybe a year with 3/Y followed within 6 months or a year before retiring the old technology and fully converting production lines.)
This assumes that the physical packaging of the cells and modules are pretty much the same as the current cars, or were the same as 3/Y and S/X had a chassis revision to allow for the change in geometry...
I would suspect S/X would have the change over happen basically around the same time. Both those vehicles are limited volume anyway. S would just want to be the flagship with 400+ miles of range or 500 miles etc. X we probably would see more focus on 300+ miles while towing a boat or small camper, etc.
I think within that same year we would see Model 3 and Y adopt the new technology (assuming Y is in full swing with SR+, LR, and Performance versions) and I think it would roll out like this; SR+ adopts the LR pack and starts at ~300+ miles and then LR/Performance versions have the new technology and 375-400 miles of range. This would allow Tesla to keep the long range versions very attractive to regular cars when range came into play AND keep the standard range versions absolutely segment leaders compared to other manufacturers. It also would allow time to wind down production lines and any purchase agreements that were in place while also ramping up capacity of the new lines. (Roadster/S/X followed within months or maybe a year with 3/Y followed within 6 months or a year before retiring the old technology and fully converting production lines.)
This assumes that the physical packaging of the cells and modules are pretty much the same as the current cars, or were the same as 3/Y and S/X had a chassis revision to allow for the change in geometry...
These quotes are from a Gigafactory Nevada engineer:
It’s hard to discern how or if these cell chemistry changes are visible to the customer. For example, they could be to simplify manufacturing or increase durability.
A major increase to range will certainly happen but that’s not likely right around the corner IMHO.
Yep, I suspect it’s driving cost down, improvements to yield during manufacturing, and possibly longevity and charging. Density may improve a little, but I suspect it’s largely not passed onto the consumer until there is an actual new release (say 65kWh and 85kWh packs in the same physical packaging that exists today, etc)
this was a major factor is leasing the vehicle for me. Over the air hardware updates?
I'd rather see advances in charging speeds and lower costs for existing range.
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
Not sad. It is good that the cars are advancing. Ever since their first cars came out, the efficiency of the batteries and drive components have inproved. Nobody gets to have the latest technology for long.
The cars being sold today are taking advantage of all the previous improvements. Your car is better than the ones that came before as well.
The cars being sold today are taking advantage of all the previous improvements. Your car is better than the ones that came before as well.
While that would be nice, it probably would be a much harder thing to do. V3 stations are just now starting to roll out in volume and have a peak of 250kW. That’s over 4kWh/min and probably 10-14 miles a minute of highway driving. Ten minute stop gets you 100+ miles (assuming you can hold onto that peak) is pretty dang good. This is even more true if you have a 350 to 400 mile range (say a 94kWh pack, +25% over current LR size in 3/Y). Realistically you would probably be 300 to 315 mile range at highway speeds which would make your endurance about 400 miles with just a ten minute stop. That’s more than 5 hours of driving for a 10 minute coffee/bathroom break.
A larger pack lets you charge less to 100% (depart a road trip at 90% because you know you have the range), more endurance in winter driving conditions, possibly longer max sustained charge rate, and better penetration into more remote areas (national park, camp ground, beach, etc).
It also allows Tesla to focus their development work, their factories. Upgrade lines and technology once and build it for everyone. Upgrading to 300 to 350kW requires building out new chargers or retrofitting old ones.
If tomorrow Tesla announced 75kWh in SR+ and 95-100kWh in LR for Model 3/Y for the same prices as now it would be a MUCH larger benefit than if they announced a V4 supercharger at 350kW.
Tesla would benefit most by offering current capacities at a lower price point.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Why would you assume that? Tesla doesn't offer such a thing in any mass production model- and it makes 0 sense for them to do so- especially given they are production limited by batteries, and also haven't got nearly enough service centers for CURRENT service demands.
They'd made a ton more $ putting new batteries in new cars and selling the whole car than they would wasting service center time retrofitting new packs in otherwise working used cars (and then being stuck with a bunch of used packs they don't need or want).
XLR82XS
D M C
Giving a battery replacement option would allow Tesla cars to better retain value, and thus make it a better and more desirable product overall. Unless, of course, you imply that Tesla will not make a better product just to sell more of them.
Similar threads
