No Plans to take X, S (or 3) above 100kWh

[drklain]

Look at it this way: we all agree that having more range is desired. Ignoring the model 3, let's estimate it would cost another $20K to make a 120D model S. that raises the price by around $30K.

Like most companies, Tesla does research on how many people will buy at a given price point. Just like anything else, as the price goes up, the number of people who will buy goes down EVEN IF IT IS A BETTER PRODUCT AFTER A CERTAIN PRICE POINT. This is why more people ordered 90D models than P100D models -- the majority of people who were price sensitive and willing to pay $100K, were not willing to pay $140K+ for a Tesla.

At present, Tesla has made the decision that a 100kWh pack is about the optimum size meaning it can be produced at a price point, size and weight that meets the needs for the majority of its customers. Look at it this way - if you can sell 100,000 model 3s with a 60kWh battery pack and make $10k profit on each one, you make $1BILLION in profits. If you create a 150D model S that sells for $200K with $50K of profit per unit but only sell 1000 of them, your profit is only $50 MILLION dollars. Now a question - as the president of a publicly traded company, which would you invest your company's efforts in - the Model 3 60 or the 150D Model S? If you say Model S, you're not likely to remain President very long...

Of course Tesla (and others) will continue R&D to make bigger capacity battery packs, but to me it makes perfect sense that this effort is a lower priority than getting Model 3 out the door. Doing this makes financial sense for the company AND supports Tesla's goals of making EVs mainstream cars (and th Model S and X will never be mainstream cars -- they are simply too expensive and are positioned for a different (and much smaller) part of the automotive market).

Personally. I'd love a bigger battery -- but I wouldn't order one if it added $20K (or more) onto the price of what I already view as an expensive car (and yes, that is just my subjective opinion, I know a Tesla is cheap compared to a $250K or $1M dollar car...but I view any car over $50K as expensive).

 

[drklain]

My suspicion is that they are in the minority I referred to.

Not to say it doesn't make economic and ecologic sense. But for the mass population that Elon is targeting EV's at, I'm not sure they will be as enlightened a your friends.

Yes, but the majority of people don't take those long road trips in their cars. Even in northern states, the majority of drivers use their cars to get to/from work and don't need that bigger battery pack and can't afford or choose not to spend $60K on a car, let alone $100K. Yet the majority of people are willing to spend $30-40K for a car that will get them to/from work and around town charging at home every night and likely never using a supercharger. The fact 400 thousand people have put money down against a model 3 tells us this. Would those people prefer a 300 (or 500 mile) model 3? Absolutely! But if the price point goes much north of $50K, they simply won't buy this car and will buy an Accord or Camry instead.

 

[scaesare]

Yes, but the majority of people don't take those long road trips in their cars. Even in northern states, the majority of drivers use their cars to get to/from work and don't need that bigger battery pack and can't afford or choose not to spend $60K on a car, let alone $100K. Yet the majority of people are willing to spend $30-40K for a car that will get them to/from work and around town charging at home every night and likely never using a supercharger. The fact 400 thousand people have put money down against a model 3 tells us this. Would those people prefer a 300 (or 500 mile) model 3? Absolutely! But if the price point goes much north of $50K, they simply won't buy this car and will buy an Accord or Camry instead.

The need for a 200 mile range car at $30K doesn't preclude the need for longer range vehicles at greater price points.

This is why there are different market segments.

 

[drklain]

No disagreement. I was just trying to explain why I think (I have no inside knowledge) Elon has publicly stated (and Tesla appears to be following) an approach which is not making greater than a 100 kWh a company priority right now (as compared to (1) model 3 production, (2) refining production of the model S/X and (3) decreasing battery charge times). Some in this thread are insisting that a larger battery pack is (1) absolutely necessary in order to get greater market penetration and (b) should be Tesla's #1 priority. Personally I don't believe either of those is true.

There will always be people who have the need for a greater than 300-350 mile range car and those who are willing to pay $150K+ for that car...but the combination of those two is a pretty small group of people relative to all automotive purchasers world-wide (or even in the United States or even in the northernmost part of the United States). If/when Tesla can get the price point of such a car down to around $50K, it is a whole new ballgame.

Personally, I think that better battery chemistry and other developments will provide that 150 or even 200 kWh battery pack in the future, but I'm not sure it will be in the 2170 cells coming out of the Gigafactory today. All indications are that there is some improvement in battery chemistry, but not enough to get to 150 without greatly expanding both the size and weight of the present model S/X battery packs. 5 years from now? Who can say, but the pace of technology change is rapid and it wouldn't surprise me. 10 years from now? Almost certainly.

Are there people today who (a) want an electric vehicle, (b) want to be able to tow something heavy like a boat, and (c) regularly tow the boat distances such that a 100 kWh battery pack won't get them "there and back again" (or possibly even "there")? Yes...and several of them have explained their needs in this thread. The problem is that that group of people is pretty small relative to the entire automotive buying public or even the Tesla buying public and thus neither Tesla nor anyone else has made meeting that need a company priority as compared to other programs/efforts. Doesn't mean the people who want it are wrong by any means. The problem is that their use case really is an "edge case"...

 

[arnis]

The 350KW is kind of a straw man in that it isn't necessary for EVs to take-off. But it is a compelling marketing factor. I wouldn't want to charge today's chemistries of Li-Ion batteries at almost 4C for 100kWh and 5C for 70kWh on a hot day. With today's chemistries requiring heat-based tapering (or cold tapering as well) I doubt that current cars will be allowed to go to 350KW. In fact, I think 350KW is for a dual-head A/B setup with each car taking a full 175KW without "sharing the SC nameplate rate" as they do now.

At last. Somebody has reasonable expectations. My version is slightly different.
Due to the fact that Tesla has more stalls per location now (than before) and due to the need to reduce costs further, I expect Tesla will have 350-450kWh charger that will feed 4 plugs. It seems reasonable. Most of the locations have at least 4 stalls (even the smallest ones AFAIK). Due to extremely good reliability I do not see any reasons to have two 2-stall chargers rather than one 4-stall charger. So, for example, 400kWh charger can supply 4 cars all charging at 100kW rate. Realistically that charger should max out all of those because it is very unlikely (much less than 2-stall variant) all 4 cars arrived at the same moment. Mathematically, 4 stalls per charger is more efficient design.

I am well aware. I've lived on the west coast of the US. My experience is that snow really doesn't make a big difference unless there are significant accumulations on the road. Extreme cold (less than -20C) has far more dramatic effect on range. And unlike at -5C or -10C, it's just not possible to run with the heater off. The Tesla windshield ices up badly, and so you need to keep defrost going. At -25C, if you want reasonable comfort, you literally (no exaggeration) lose half of your range.

Even with superchargers, it is ridiculous to have to charge for an hour for every 2 hours of driving. And that is exactly what happens on a road trip in very cold temps. And without superchargers (still the case in a LOT of areas), you just aren't going. From end of November to early March, I usually take my wife's car for longer trips.

I cannot tell you how many friends I have, who would consider a Tesla, but can't because the range is prohibitive. There are MANY.

There are many ways Tesla could improve winter range. As soon as they have resources, I'm sure they will start doing something.
I have multiple solutions for starters.
Heat pump won't work in extreme cold. So I exclude that.
Windshield must be electrically heated (like e-Golf) - this means no need to use defrost air vents.
More heated surfaces (BMW 7-series offers now) - not only seat, also headrest, armrests (door and central).
Louvers for all air intake apertures. This should help drivetrain temperature.
Curtains for all windows (my 5-series has those).
Dual layer windows (my 5-series has that).

And going more extreme - Electric Desiccant Dehumidifier - will allow high level of air recirculation without any moisture buildup. Device is very compact and in conjunction with PTC heater actually takes even less space.
Ceramic infrared radiation heaters for foot-well compartments. Usually this is where heating usually lacks.

But I think doing 5 first steps would be enough to reduce range so it won't dip more than 25% compared to mild warm weather.
I'm not talking about sunroof, because Model S has a design flaw there (no shade) - this is noticeable even in mildly chilly weather.

For those who want to make their EV drive further in very cold weather: add 3M Ir+UV transparent tint for ALL windows and buy half-transparent suction cup type curtains. I know, OEM solution is much nicer.
http://1-photos7.ebizautos.com/new-2017-bmw-7_series-740i-8507-15876610-45-1024.jpg

 

[DarkMatter]

None of those solutions raise the temperature of the battery, push the water off the road, or thin the air. You're chasing at most 10% of the energy usage in cold highway travel. At full tilt the cabin heat uses 6kW, right? It doesn't stay at full tilt for long even in really cold weather. So it's something like 5kWh between Supercharger stops. Unless you need the range to make the hop it makes more sense to just add the 90 seconds to the charging session and have heat.

 

[James Anders]

If you look at 100kWh battery pack there's not much space for additional cells. Once they move to the new 2170 cell format Tesla will probably be able to add another 20kWh.

120kWh battery pack is likely years away and not a priority for Tesla right now.

I thought power density was foreseen to increase a certain percentage each year (on average) for the foreseeable future?

There are times when having an extra buffer is important. You can only plan so much in advance. My max charge rate is 16 miles an hour. I'm usually fine with that considering the amount I drive. But there has been a few times when I pretty much depleted my range for the day only to have an emergency arise.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Tesla should just let people plan in the dark and then get angry later? That doesn't work in the long run. Tesla needs to open up its communication not shut down. This kind of style didn't work for the Communists.

And your suggested style didn't work for Osborne Computer, which went out of business after pre-announcing a new product which tanked sales of its existing products. What you suggest is simply not done. Apple doesn't tell you about next year's iPhone just like Musk won't tell you about next year's battery capacity. You buy what's on the market today if it meets your needs without regard to what's coming. If you are concerned with what's coming, then you wait. Simple. If you, as a consumer, get angry because a new battery is released 6 months after you bought your car then I humbly suggest there are other issues at play. Maybe a non-Tesla vehicle manufacturer with more predictable product update cycles may suit your personality better. Tesla makes updates when they are ready, which has allowed the company to iterate the vehicle so quickly in so short a time.

It's a foregone conclusion that as battery costs drop and advances are made in energy density and/or new technologies such as super-capacitors, range will absolutely increase and become a selling point. Tesla's range will be challenged by competitors and that will become a point of differentiation. We are on the cusp of a new technology race - EV range - and this is only the beginning. As cars become more autonomous, there will be less desire to stop and refuel. When we are liberated from the task of driving and can do other things, like interact with our passengers, check our email, surf the web, etc., the need to stop and recharge will quickly become an annoyance and will be seen as a negative.

Your viewpoint, not necessarily you in particular, appears motivated out of a desire to protect some hypothetical investment and to have the "latest thing" for as long as possible. That is ego and vanity talking, has nothing to do with market realities. I humbly suggest that people who see things this way stop looking at their world in this manner. I have a pre-AP Classic P85 and in no way am I upset, or angered, or disappointed that today's Model S can practically drive itself and with a 25% longer range than when I purchased my vehicle. That's life. The world turns. Watch a soap opera.

 

[bonaire]

I thought power density was foreseen to increase a certain percentage each year (on average) for the foreseeable future?

There are times when having an extra buffer is important. You can only plan so much in advance. My max charge rate is 16 miles an hour. I'm usually fine with that considering the amount I drive. But there has been a few times when I pretty much depleted my range for the day only to have an emergency arise.

Chemistry density for NCA and NMC is pretty close to limits but throw in what you can get with Li-Sulfur and find 1000+ charges with that and make it cheap enough, then you're getting somewhere close to 180kWh in the physics of the 100kWh battery case.

 

[croman]

And your suggested style didn't work for Osborne Computer, which went out of business after pre-announcing a new product which tanked sales of its existing products. What you suggest is simply not done. Apple doesn't tell you about next year's iPhone just like Musk won't tell you about next year's battery capacity. You buy what's on the market today if it meets your needs without regard to what's coming. If you are concerned with what's coming, then you wait. Simple. If you, as a consumer, get angry because a new battery is released 6 months after you bought your car then I humbly suggest there are other issues at play. Maybe a non-Tesla vehicle manufacturer with more predictable product update cycles may suit your personality better. Tesla makes updates when they are ready, which has allowed the company to iterate the vehicle so quickly in so short a time.

Tesla doesn't owe you or anyone else anything.

You know the Osborne thing is a myth, right? Peddling it over and over again doesn't change the fact that Osborne tanked for reasons other than announcing new hardware that wasn't ready. Even wikipedia knows that.

Osborne effect - Wikipedia

"Apparently, while sales dipped after the initial announcement, they eventually began to pick up, and cash started flowing into the company."

Calling for closed communication is short sighted but please continue to call for it even though it makes no sense.

 

[James Anders]

Chemistry density for NCA and NMC is pretty close to limits but throw in what you can get with Li-Sulfur and find 1000+ charges with that and make it cheap enough, then you're getting somewhere close to 180kWh in the physics of the 100kWh battery case.

I am just going by what JBS and EM said a few years ago.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

You know the Osborne thing is a myth, right? Peddling it over and over again doesn't change the fact that Osborne tanked for reasons other than announcing new hardware that wasn't ready. Even wikipedia knows that.

Osborne effect - Wikipedia

"Apparently, while sales dipped after the initial announcement, they eventually began to pick up, and cash started flowing into the company."

Calling for closed communication is short sighted but please continue to call for it even though it makes no sense.

You know anyone can edit and change a Wikipedia page, right?

Equating non-disclosure of an internal product roadmap with "closed communication" shows a lack of understanding of some basic high technology business principles. I've worked in high tech long enough to know that companies will rarely, if ever, reveal product roadmaps to the detriment of what is currently shipping.

I think it's wholly unreasonable to expect Elon Musk to say "yah, we'll have a 120 kWh battery in 2018". How can that not harm current sales? Elon is already on record saying that we should expect capacity increases, on average, of about 5% annually. He said this with the launch of the 90 kWh pack. It's a bit naive to think that he has now reversed himself to lock his entire fleet down to a maximum 100 kWh pack size.

 

[Vitold]

I thought power density was foreseen to increase a certain percentage each year (on average) for the foreseeable future?

There are times when having an extra buffer is important. You can only plan so much in advance. My max charge rate is 16 miles an hour. I'm usually fine with that considering the amount I drive. But there has been a few times when I pretty much depleted my range for the day only to have an emergency arise.

Increasing battery capacity due to inadequate charging infrastructure is wrong (expensive/wasteful) way to go, IMO. At this point, increased speed of charging would help more people than increasing battery size and that's where Tesla needs to focus next (as in tweaking battery chemistry for faster charging instead of density)

 

[wcfinvader]

Serious question that sounds snarky: how rural do you have to be to need more than 100kWh? Isn't that a 100 mile round trip even in dreadful conditions? I'm trying to understand the benefit to a bigger battery instead of building out more and faster charging.

Bigger Battery=Fast Charging because of less taper. We drive 300-450 miles from home once a month. Right now we have a supercharger a hour away that we MUST stop at to make it comfortably to a CHAdeMO in St. Joseph, MO because the build-out of superchargers are quite lacking. The most ideal route is not the interstate system to either destination but we must take the interstate because of the superchargers. State highways will be a long time before they are filled in with superchargers. Why not have bigger batteries to compensate and relieve the need for as many superchargers. ~180kw-200kw is needed for us to make these trips without the need of a interstate and superchargers.

Also look at a map. There are many Interstates but come to the Midwest they are very far apart. Currently it would be very difficult for us to go straight north to I-90 or straight south to I-70 because of the amount of distance between the two. Larger batteries solve these problems and make EV's more desirable to people in rural areas because many of times unlike Urban folk, Rural Folk drive longer distances without thinking much about it so plenty of range is heavily desired.

 

[bonaire]

Increasing battery capacity due to inadequate charging infrastructure is wrong (expensive/wasteful) way to go, IMO. At this point, increased speed of charging would help more people than increasing battery size and that's where Tesla needs to focus next (as in tweaking battery chemistry for faster charging instead of density)

If Tesla could guarantee that the charge rate for the A/B sides of current supercharger equipment got the full KW rating (ie. 120KW or more) even if both cars were plugged in, it would be a huge step-up for busy supercharger locations where charge-speed really is critical. For the superchargers out in Idaho and Iowa where few cars stop through, you should get nearly full capacity of the SC, but in crowded superchargers, there are reports of deteriorated charge rates (some reporting 30-35KW here on TMC in some cases).

There are limits to how fast you should charge a set of batteries. Risks of the balance taps not taking enough power away from an overcharged set of parallel cells can lead to overcharging (whether shortened life of cells or catastrophic failure). So, 2C to 3C charge rates must have good balancing circuits at those charge rates. Most drivers are not long-haul distance drivers so is the very fast charge rates really a "want" more than a true "need"? It's a convenience, sure, but are we talking first-world desires versus what really is important and that is lowering the cost of EVs in order to get more people to buy them? For the typical EV driver, leaving home with a full-tank and 200+ mile range of their affordable EV is more critical - and not the high-speed charge rates of someone taking a long-driving vacation. If fast charge was really really important, why didn't battery swap take off as a more-demanded facility?

 

[arnis]

None of those solutions raise the temperature of the battery, push the water off the road, or thin the air. You're chasing at most 10% of the energy usage in cold highway travel. At full tilt the cabin heat uses 6kW, right? It doesn't stay at full tilt for long even in really cold weather. So it's something like 5kWh between Supercharger stops. Unless you need the range to make the hop it makes more sense to just add the 90 seconds to the charging session and have heat.

I was dissecting problems due to very cold weather that eats range.
As I understood some users are happy with summer range but not happy with very cold weather range.
Therefore problem is not water on road nor thick air.
Battery should be heated up before the trip (to +10C, preheating the cabin does that). Closing all air intake
apertures should allow battery to stay warmer. And will also have positive results on air drag.

Also it is more reasonable to have more efficient vehicle rather than more gasoline/juice on-board.

At -20C energy requirement for fully warmed up cabin is expected to be at least 3kW (no glass roof).
Definitely more than 5kWh between Superchargers. But it depends on requested cabin temperature.
And if weather turn ugly things get even worse - 3kW requirement still applies but average driving speed goes down.
This means CC draw will increase per distance traveled. This also applies random temporary road closures.

 

[widodh]

Another Tweet/post about this: Elon Musk Says "Sticking To 100" For Max Tesla Battery Capacity

With the ever expanding SuperCharger and other fast charging networks he does have a point.

If they can change the chemistry (Solid State??) to achieve:
- Less weight
- Faster charging
- 100kWh capacity

100kWh yields 90kWh of 'usable' capacity (buffers and such), that should easily take you 400km/250m. A 15m stop in between should get you back on the road again.

Seems sane to me.

 

[DarkMatter]

Plans might change when the 100 battery is half the weight. That's far enough in the future that it makes sense right now there are effectively no plans. Plans changed before. I'd say check back in five years.

 

[widodh]

Plans might change when the 100 battery is half the weight. That's far enough in the future that it makes sense right now there are effectively no plans. Plans changed before. I'd say check back in five years.

Sure, it's not set in stone for ever. Plans do change!

Gas tanks in cars don't get bigger every year either. There is a maximum/optimum. It's range vs weight vs cost at some point.

 

[scottm]

We all know real capacity limitation is "whatever you can pack in that floor space".
Suppose battery technology triples capacity per unit volume...
Would we automatically assume cars will go 3 x the distance?

Probably not... when tech gets to a certain sweet spot it becomes detrimental to haul around more capacity than you need.
The sweet spot is determined by refueling station availability (and refueling speed).

When refueling is abundant, range is the solved problem and we can shift attention to the next problems .... cars can get lighter and more efficient and faster (as if we need that!) -- instead of having to worry about packing around extra metal (or whatever) inside the batteries.

"100 kWh is enough" puts a peg in the ground that challenges the adequacy of fueling station availability and charging speed, and puts focus / awareness on recharging station networks. This is a competitive advantage of Tesla they are now playing out.

It's not really about the battery anymore.