Two errors here:
1. Original (A pack) 85 kWh batteries do not charge over 90 kW, much less 110 kW.
2. Newer (non A pack) 85 kWh batteies do not charge "well over" 110 kW. They briefly charge "a little" over 110 kW, before the taper kicks in.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
1. Original (A pack) 85 kWh batteries do not charge over 90 kW, much less 110 kW.
2. Newer (non A pack) 85 kWh batteies do not charge "well over" 110 kW. They briefly charge "a little" over 110 kW, before the taper kicks in.
(Speculation)
(/speculation)
I agree. As I said in my post, quote: "In my opinion, Tesla takes a properly cautious approach to introducing new cell types and chemistries and doesn't get seduced (like GM did) with radical new cell types that appear to offer tremendous promise but have not been demonstrated to readily scale to mass production and have demonstrated long term reliability."
Weren't we beyond that point? Pre-silicone anode cars not affected, still charging fast as ever, especially 90kWh cars are subject to throttling. The much larger 100kWh pack is not showing a higher charger peak either, even new.(Speculation)(/speculation)
I'm sure the 2170's will be better tested and if necessary pre-throttled, but I doubt they'll be able to match the 2012 18650's for C rate, by a long shot. Hope to be wrong.
hill
high fiber member
He also said we'd do battery swap out . . . . code word for, meet hydrogen quick charge criteria . . .
.
Yours is generally an accurate assessment of progress to date, but I think it's important to also factor in cost and production rate when discussing 'battery tech'...and it at least seems like the gigafactory will addrsss those aspects.
Tam
Well-Known Member
People keep saying there's no need for longer range but the recent news release describes underestimating the longer range need is a major reason for hindering more sales:
“The major factor affecting Tesla’s Q2 deliveries was a severe production shortfall of 100 kWh battery packs, which are made using new technologies on new production lines. The technology challenge grows exponentially with energy density. Until early June, production averaged about 40% below demand. Once this was resolved, June orders and deliveries were strong, ranking as one of the best in Tesla history.”
"severe production shortfall of 100 kWh battery packs" sounds like Tesla was scratching their head wondering since they got 60, 75, 85 and 90 already who would need more range? It makes absolutely no sense now!!!
Sales chart from the Motley Fool showing Q2-2017 is lower than Q1-2017 due to shortage of longer range battery pack:
Last edited:
Except Tesla has data on exactly how people use their batteries. It would not surprise me if the 100D uptake is based on perception more than actual need. It could be like all the people who live in fair-weather areas and assume they need AWD on non-Tesla vehicles. Some people just want to buy the biggest and best no matter what. (Of course on Tesla vehicles it makes sense because of the efficiency improvement.)
Tam
Well-Known Member
If I keep preaching that it is not sensible to buy a lottery ticket because the actual chance is so remote, that doesn't mean there is no profit in selling lottery. It's the opposite.
I can try to change people's perception hard but that does not mean Tesla should ignore the demand citing owners' perception are not valid.
There are still the following advantages of a larger battery, the applicability of which depends on the individual:
A. Potential faster charging.
B. Longer time before battery replacement required.
C. There are still many places without fast chargers.
D. Cold weather reduces range. Add snow and it goes down even more.
Real life example:
Two weeks ago I wanted to go with my friends from Lincoln to Sioux City. It's 102 miles from the Council Bluffs SC to Sioux City. That means we would have to stop there and do a range charge (at least 30 minutes). There were also six construction stops along I-29 that day, so it would likely be okay, but no guarantee, so we might have had to stop for an hour at a public charger in Sioux City. We ended up not going because it was just going to take too long. Had there not been construction we probably would have gone. A longer range battery would also have allowed us to go.
A. Potential faster charging.
B. Longer time before battery replacement required.
C. There are still many places without fast chargers.
D. Cold weather reduces range. Add snow and it goes down even more.
Real life example:
Two weeks ago I wanted to go with my friends from Lincoln to Sioux City. It's 102 miles from the Council Bluffs SC to Sioux City. That means we would have to stop there and do a range charge (at least 30 minutes). There were also six construction stops along I-29 that day, so it would likely be okay, but no guarantee, so we might have had to stop for an hour at a public charger in Sioux City. We ended up not going because it was just going to take too long. Had there not been construction we probably would have gone. A longer range battery would also have allowed us to go.
Twice the SC density would have also made that trip possible. The neat part about upping the SC density though is that it will make every single Tesla more useful, regardless of battery size, and increase the usable value of the smaller battery cars as new vehicles.
We don't want to encourage small batteries. 300 mile range should be the minimum for pretty much every vehicle, whether ICE or EV. I had a Leaf before and the short range really was a pain in the ass. Even dropping to a 200 mile range would make my Tesla exponentially less useful.
Well, 200kWh pack with absolutely no advancements will lose pretty much the same percentage of range. So, like some say here on forum, 400 mile EV would be OK. I say: You sure? As it gets cold it goes down to 200 miles. How about that?
Well I can do more than 99% with my sub 100 mile EV. Though charging infrastructure is perfect (100% coverage, each DC-charger no more than 25 miles apart).
Well that is absolutely not a thing to consider. Tesla's batteries appears to last for decades. Car will die earlier. Therefore, reasonable engineer (not an unreasonable consumer) would have to stop from here. It is not OK to invest into something that never pays back.
It's not about what you can do, it's about all the things you can't do. When I had my Leaf I almost ran out of range one night just going into town to have dinner with my wife. We made a couple of other stops that were 10-15 minutes apart and by the time we got home it was almost completely dead. No way I'm stopping to charge for 30 minutes on a simple night out.
I never drove it anywhere farther away from my house than the airport (which basically drained it completely to drive there and back about 45 miles away). In fact I wouldn't have taken it to the airport at all if I wasn't 95% sure I"d be able to plug it in at the park-n-ride while traveling.
Even with the 300 mile range on the Tesla there are trips we can just barely make that we do all the time. Atlanta to Chattanooga and back for a day trip without a charging stop gets me back home without much cushion left and we do that tip 1-2 times per month. I usually still try and find an L2 charger to park at wherever we go up there.
Thunk thunk.... hitting head on wall. There IS a need for larger batteries - but perhaps not in WA or CA. The need is in places where you're annually dealing with -20C or lower, and want to be able to drive long trips without wearing a ski suit and heated boots. In very cold temps, you can cut your range in half. Superchargers aren't available every 180 km on many/most routes. And even if they were, who the heck wants to stop for an hour to charge, every two hours?
I'm a really really tired of people telling me that this is not required, simply because THEY don't require it.
I don't have an issue with people deciding that THEY don't need it. But don't tell me that I don't need it. For me, I agree, 300 miles range is a minimum of you want a no compromise vehicle. But that should be 300 miles in the middle of an ACTUAL winter... not the 40-45 degree west coast winters.
PJFW8
Red Menace may hurt me
You must be one of those ignorant hill-billy consumers, like me.
This totally depends on your situation (as I said). That is true for some. But if you live in Manitoba, Montana, or some similar state), your starting range in winter (with an S85) can be as low as 150 miles. It doesn't take a whole lot of degradation to bring the car down to where it's no longer practical for that individual. Same thing with someone in Southern California or Texas who has a 100 mile one way commute. It also applies if you live in any of the prairie states where SCs are few and many routes don't have SCs at all. In most prairie states if one SC is down, you're stuck and can't make it to the following one. Sure, in twenty years when SCs are as thick as flies that won't be an issue (although quite a few people still purchase ICE vehicles with 600-700 mile tanks mainly because they have that range). But today the EV reality is that there are two main concerns: range and degradation. (And it looks as if the new chemistry has serious degradation issues--some TMC members report 10% to 20% at 50K to 60K km. Still not enough data to confirm this though.)
I'd suggest that the correct range, which wouldn't need to be exceeded, would be capable of traveling between Dallas, TX and Lincoln, NE (as an example) with only one charging stop (lunch) in good weather, two stops in bad weather using daily range. The distance is about 1000 km. That would mean about 500 km 90% range (555 km 100% range).
The more personal criteria is that an EV should have enough capacity for three to four days of your round trip commute. This will get you through most power outages, emergency traveling, or if you forget to plug it in one night (rare but it's happened to me twice in four years).
The number one range comment I get at events is, "I can drive from Dallas to Houston easily without stopping. I won't buy an electric car until it can do the same." Today this isn't possible with a 90% charge, it's just possible in good weather with a 100% charge on a new 100 kWh battery. Note that you want to arrive in Houston with a minimum of 100 km left for local travel, so you can charge overnight at a destination charger rather than having to charge as soon as you arrive.
There are more people on Earth without ability to use a home charger, and without partical SC coverage to make up for it.
You can focus on the market you already conquered, or the large beast still waiting too be challenged.
If Tesla truly TRULY cared about what customers say they want, rather than what they think they need, they'd make a longer range version. The largefrunk is nice, but not crucial to buyers. Same for the rear floor wells. Model S even is very spaceous, could have more space for batteries. And if you look at how thin the pack it, it could be 50% thicker easily. And only barely affect consumption. Audi I think it was, will place some batteries under the 2nd row seat, where Tesla has the chargers.
Teslas are practical, but not really built with range focus. This is why you see new BEV startups coming up with 130kW promises (Lucid, FF), or 400 mile claims (Fisker). It's the one thing Tesla can be beaten at, and people actually care about. A 400 mile Fisher or Lucid? Yes please, if I'm to be a business traveller! But if Tesla merely made the effort, like Model 3 100kWh, that'd be truly awesome. Soon enough, someone else will do it, and Tesla will be chasing market developments rather than being chased. Big brands are allocating serious money to BEV's, and their customers don't have a Tesla yet because of range and cost. Model 3 will combat cost some, not range. But a ~415 mile (100kWh) Model 3 would only have $10K in cells. Surely they could build a pack costing $13K around the 2170's and somehow make it fit. Heck, make it a Model 3 long wheelbase if you have to. You'll sell 100's of thousands of them annually, costs will be OK...
You can focus on the market you already conquered, or the large beast still waiting too be challenged.
If Tesla truly TRULY cared about what customers say they want, rather than what they think they need, they'd make a longer range version. The largefrunk is nice, but not crucial to buyers. Same for the rear floor wells. Model S even is very spaceous, could have more space for batteries. And if you look at how thin the pack it, it could be 50% thicker easily. And only barely affect consumption. Audi I think it was, will place some batteries under the 2nd row seat, where Tesla has the chargers.
Teslas are practical, but not really built with range focus. This is why you see new BEV startups coming up with 130kW promises (Lucid, FF), or 400 mile claims (Fisker). It's the one thing Tesla can be beaten at, and people actually care about. A 400 mile Fisher or Lucid? Yes please, if I'm to be a business traveller! But if Tesla merely made the effort, like Model 3 100kWh, that'd be truly awesome. Soon enough, someone else will do it, and Tesla will be chasing market developments rather than being chased. Big brands are allocating serious money to BEV's, and their customers don't have a Tesla yet because of range and cost. Model 3 will combat cost some, not range. But a ~415 mile (100kWh) Model 3 would only have $10K in cells. Surely they could build a pack costing $13K around the 2170's and somehow make it fit. Heck, make it a Model 3 long wheelbase if you have to. You'll sell 100's of thousands of them annually, costs will be OK...
Similar threads
- Article
