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

[AmpedRealtor]

Fisker EMotion is launching next year at a list price of $129,000. It's going to go 400 miles on a charge. Of course Tesla will need greater than 100 kWh pack to compete with this, at least on the high end. Audi is also announcing 400 mile range for its coming EV. These are all going to require packs larger than 100 kWh or a breakthrough in range efficiency. With other, longer range options available to consumers in the next couple of years, Tesla will absolutely have to compete on range or lose sales.

Say what you want about Fisker, but he can definitely design a sexy car.

 

[jerry33]

As I have said before, I suspect Elon made that statement to avoid the Osbourne effect. Range is something people will definitely hold off buying to get.

 

[Cloxxki]

I just saw a render of some Audi or other future BEV. Had some extra modules under the rear/middle row seats. Model X has whole bunch of air there, and the seats down't even kneel to offer a lower flat floor for cargo. Seems Tesla might ADD a pack, rather than make a bigger-than-100kWh pack

Also there's that jumpseat cavity in the back, I believe of both the S and X? Sacrifice it.
I found somewhere: Well: 39" wide, 20" front to rear, 10" deep.
Seems it would comfortably take 3 layers of standing 2170's and including packaging and cooling, around 35 wide and 18 deep. That's 1890 cells @ ~19Wh = 36kWh. Even just 2 layers under a shallow space to store some well-rolled cables, that's huge at 24kWh. And to those who worry about weight, the higher density of 2170's will give us a good discount on the added weight.

In the original RWD Model S, that "microwave" compartment in the frunk would also take a nice amount of cells.
Without hurting practicality too much, a 150kWh Model S seems on the card, even without updating the main pack. Oh, and that's without redoing the rear seats. Really, if Tesla cared, they'd build a RWD 200kWh car that to the casual observer is still a spaceous card, with largely intact frunk. 120kWh main pack (of not more), 36kWh in the well, another 36kWh under the rear seats, and says 12kWh in the front makes 204kWh. Use Model X springs. 600 mile range. Battery assortment still costs just $20-30K to make.

 

[techmaven]

Fisker EMotion is launching next year at a list price of $129,000. It's going to go 400 miles on a charge. Of course Tesla will need greater than 100 kWh pack to compete with this, at least on the high end. Audi is also announcing 400 mile range for its coming EV. These are all going to require packs larger than 100 kWh or a breakthrough in range efficiency. With other, longer range options available to consumers in the next couple of years, Tesla will absolutely have to compete on range or lose sales.

Say what you want about Fisker, but he can definitely design a sexy car.

So, Fisker first said that the EMotion uses a new graphene battery technology to achieve the 400 mile range. Recently, when showing the prototype, he said it won't have the new cell technology, and yet will still have 400 miles of range. Hmmm.

What Audi is claimed to have 400+ miles of range? The next Audi e-tron, a SUV, is supposed to get more than 311 miles of range, but on the NEDC scale, which means more like 220 or 230 miles of range. That's with a 95 kWh battery. It's basically similar to the Jaguar I-Pace and the Mercedes EQ, all about Model 3 sized, but taller as CUVs and terrible range given the battery pack sizes. All are talking about 500 km of NEDC range (311 miles) but that translates to less range than a Model X 75D.

 

[DarkMatter]

I hope Fisker's new car delivers. Right now it looks unlikely. Even if it does happen I'd suspect the NEDC range as that's what many of the manufacturers have been quoting. The 100D has a NEDC range of what, 393 miles?

 

[scaesare]

Cargo box on the roof is as rare as Tesla X on the streets of Central Europe.

Not here.

I would also describe my favorite American lifestyle:

**BUNCH OF NOISE REINFORCING STEREOTYPES DELETED**

It's apparent you are:

1. Not interested looking at the global market Tesla is targeting
2. Ignoring not uncommon use cases because they don't happen to be yours
3. Interested in denigrating other nationalities

Thus, this is my last reply to you.

 

[scaesare]

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia

Sure. It's also okay to cede the corner cases for now and spend the effort building out the infrastructure and improvements that will help all the people in the middle. Maybe instead you spend those pack improvements on allowing higher charging rates, so you eventually get 350kW charging, or on a battery that loses less capacity when col, or on lowering the cost of the battery, or hotter charging without damage, or a twenty year design lifetime instead of a ten year one. Throwing more battery at the car solves things for fewer and fewer people as you go on.

A 90mile example isn't the end-all-be-all proof case. My point, as @abasile points out, is this isn't some exotic road trip situation. It's a rather-common "need to drive somewhere a couple hours away" scenario.

I've had a few cases where I needed to make trips that are ~80-85 in the winter in my 85kWh pack. I plugged in to a 110 to keep the pack warm, but while that prevents a larger startup spike, steady straight driving at highway speeds in the teens/twenties still consumes 50% more energy. Even more if you want to stay warm in the cabin.

Now my car is only an 85, not a 100. But an X also consumes greater energy per mile. If you don't have at least L2 charging at your destination, you better hope that a 180-200 mile round trip doesn't experience unexpected snow, a detour, a headwind, etc...

 

[brianman]

Say what you want about Fisker, but he can definitely design a sexy car.

Agree to disagree, and better for another thread.

I see a tongue sticking out and a car eating another car (kind of the reverse of the i8 aesthetics problem). YMMV.

 

[DarkMatter]

I plugged in to a 110 to keep the pack warm, but while that prevents a larger startup spike, steady straight driving at highway speeds in the teens/twenties still consumes 50% more energy. Even more if you want to stay warm in the cabin.

Is this much worse than in the high 20s? Because I have never driven with the heat set to less than 70, and I was getting around 350-370 Wh/mile in my 85 at that temperature when starting with a warm battery. The same route this time of year is around 300 Wh/mile. It's really not 50% more. What are you seeing for Wh/mile?

 

[arnis]

I've had a few cases where I needed to make trips that are ~80-85 in the winter in my 85kWh pack. I plugged in to a 110 to keep the pack warm, but while that prevents a larger startup spike, steady straight driving at highway speeds in the teens/twenties still consumes 50% more energy. Even more if you want to stay warm in the cabin.

JFYI- To warm up the battery one must precondition the vehicle.
Keeping vehicle plugged in keeps the battery not frozen. It appears you did not RTFM.
110V for your Twin Juicer? Well that wasn't well thought through.
Math says 110V it is not enough for: normal water kettle, water boiler/heater, home AC, powerful vacuum cleaner, stove.
And it's definitely not enough to adequately preheat nor charge EV. Especially Tesla.
Though good enough for toaster and microwave oven.


It's funny when people can buy a vehicle for 80k and can't get a dryer socket installed where needed.

 

[arnis]

Fisker EMotion is launching next year at a list price of $129,000. It's going to go 400 miles on a charge. Of course Tesla will need greater than 100 kWh pack to compete with this, at least on the high end. Audi is also announcing 400 mile range for its coming EV. These are all going to require packs larger than 100 kWh or a breakthrough in range efficiency. With other, longer range options available to consumers in the next couple of years, Tesla will absolutely have to compete on range or lose sales.

Say what you want about Fisker, but he can definitely design a sexy car.

Sexy? Yes. Is S/X/3 a competitor? No. EMotion is an emotion. And not a people mover. Closest competitor would rather be Roadster.
S/X/3 are for people to buy and use daily. In tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands. There are lots of ICE competitors for EMotion. Not a lot of market share to win in any way. And it's likely a 2-seater. Something similar as BMW i8 (I'm looking at windows and they tell me that rear passengers must be decapitated) Even less headspace than in S.

 

[scaesare]

Is this much worse than in the high 20s? Because I have never driven with the heat set to less than 70, and I was getting around 350-370 Wh/mile in my 85 at that temperature when starting with a warm battery. The same route this time of year is around 300 Wh/mile. It's really not 50% more. What are you seeing for Wh/mile?

I've driven in the teens where highway speeds (~70mph) had the car consuming a bit over 400wh/mi. I can make rated range at a about 273Wh/mi. Not with a cold soaked battery.

We don't get temps like that too often here, but I'm in a pretty moderate area too.

 

[LimoX]

Would adding a second gear, or taller gear ratio on the one gear we do have, also be a way to improve range for a given battery size?

..when what we're shooting for is long range, above other factors such as "quickness". Even if the car remains a fixed-gear drive, I wonder if we'll have a factory option to order the "long ranger" version or the "high performer" version for a given car configuration... and they select the corresponding drive train at build time?

Or does the electric coil induction motor have a much wider RPM range on its efficiency curve that this topic basically doesn't matter?

Damn good idea! Motor has heaps of torque to support a taller gear. But that would add complexity and cost to the drive train.

I still reckon there's heaps of room to cram in more batteries. I'd gladly sacrifice 30% of the Frunk on my X for more battery

 

[abasile]

It's funny when people can buy a vehicle for 80k and can't get a dryer socket installed where needed.

That someone can purchase a Tesla doesn't mean they've been granted superpowers!

Yeah, if Grandma's in a regular house, then I'd try to install something. But if she's in a retirement home, that might not be so easy, just sayin'.

 

[ecarfan]

The missing word in Elon's "no plans" to go above 100kWh statement is "immediate".

Of course at some point in the future Tesla will offer higher capacity battery packs because there are numerous use cases where they are needed even if Superchargers are everywhere and spaced less than 100 miles apart.

I am sure Elon is aware of that.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The missing word in Elon's "no plans" to go above 100kWh statement is "immediate".

Of course at some point in the future Tesla will offer higher capacity battery packs because there are numerous use cases where they are needed even if Superchargers are everywhere and spaced less than 100 miles apart.

I am sure Elon is aware of that.

Alternative would be missing words "in the current Model S or X."

The 100kWh maxed out the cells by changing the configuration. We also saw that Tesla restricted the maximum charging rate of the 90kWh battery. All signs point to being at the limits.

Focus is on the 2170. There's a contract to complete on the 18650.
Maybe after the Model 3 is ramped and the 18560 contract is complete Tesla will look to increase capacity and they'll be able to agree an appropriate new deal with Panasonic with either 18650s or 2170s and Tesla will devote some resources to redesign of the S and X with an expanded battery.

 

[ecarfan]

Maybe after the Model 3 is ramped and the 18560 contract is complete Tesla will look to increase capacity and they'll be able to agree an appropriate new deal with Panasonic with either 18650s or 2170s and Tesla will devote some resources to redesign of the S and X with an expanded battery

Maybe. But given that battery energy density improves on average about 5-10% annually, I think higher capacity battery packs will occur in a year or two or three when battery chemistry / cell materials changes occur within the existing 2170 form factor, and Tesla has sufficiently tested those cell changes to be confident enough to offer them to customers.

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.

 

[Cloxxki]

Maybe. But given that battery energy density improves on average about 5-10% annually.

Since the original Model S in 2012, tesla has accomplished the 5%, once. Let alone 10% 5 times.
The 2170's need to be spectacularly better, or Tesla has failed miserably at helping battery tech forward.
The increase they accomplished forced them to throttle the 90KWh pack with frequent Supercharging to 90-95kW, the original 85's still charge well over 110kW. So you get a bit of range for a lot slower peak charging speed. Progress! 2170 will need to do better, or Tesla will be decidedly on the backfoot.

 

[wcfinvader]

Since the original Model S in 2012, tesla has accomplished the 5%, once. Let alone 10% 5 times.
The 2170's need to be spectacularly better, or Tesla has failed miserably at helping battery tech forward.
The increase they accomplished forced them to throttle the 90KWh pack with frequent Supercharging to 90-95kW, the original 85's still charge well over 110kW. So you get a bit of range for a lot slower peak charging speed. Progress! 2170 will need to do better, or Tesla will be decidedly on the backfoot.

Finally someone speaks the truth. I couldn't have said it better. I agree 100%!

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Maybe. But given that battery energy density improves on average about 5-10% annually, I think higher capacity battery packs will occur in a year or two or three when battery chemistry / cell materials changes occur within the existing 2170 form factor, and Tesla has sufficiently tested those cell changes to be confident enough to offer them to customers.

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.

However it's not just a matter of increasing density. The denser cell has to increase density while meeting cost and performance targets.