TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Now that 100kwh is around the corner

Discussion in 'Model S: Battery & Charging' started by blackscraper, Aug 16, 2016.

  1. Model 3

    Model 3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    2,135
    Location:
    Norway
    I will not guess on the kWh capacity, but just range. From some hints from Elon I think it is reasonable to think that Tesla will - as the battery technology is advancing - continue to increase the storage capacity of their batteries until it gets about 500 miles EPA range. From then on they will rather work on reducing weight, space, cost and charging time. I think that number will have a good psychological effect on prospected customers and let them clearly understand that range is of no concern.
     
  2. Plan B

    Plan B Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,385
    Location:
    EARTH
    Shorter times at the Super Chagers would be good.
     
    • Like x 1
  3. James Anders

    James Anders Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    Location:
    Southampton, PA
    So would I rather have a 180 kWh battery....or a 90 kWh battery that weighed half as much as my current battery?

    Dropping 800-900 pounds (or whatever) might make some solid performance gains, don't you think? And probably some range improvements as well,
     
  4. evjc

    evjc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2015
    Messages:
    19
    Location:
    Central Iowa
    There have been several interesting points made in this thread.
    Personally, the 85 KWH pack in my model S 85D is more than adequate for 95% of my driving. But for the very few times per year that I take longer trips, I would like to see a real world range of 300+ miles per charge at approximately 70 mph. That might translate to something like a 120-150 KWH battery pack.

    I agree with those who have stated a desire to see more superchargers and for destination chargers to become widespread. While Tesla's plan to put superchargers along major routes (mostly near interstate highways in the US) is reasonable initially, I think placing superchargers along some heavily traveled lesser routes is needed to fill in some of the "holes" in the charger map and make electric vehicle travel easier and more common.

    I doubt supercharging rates will get any faster and I also doubt the physical size of Tesla battery packs will change. So any improvements in battery capacity must come from improved energy density of the cells in the pack. The big unanswered question is can battery cell technology improve enough in the next several years to make BEVs range compatible with ICE vehicles at a similar purchase price? Until that occurs, there will be many who refuse to consider a BEV as an option for their personal vehicle.
     
  5. KJD

    KJD Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    SLC, UT
    I just wish that Tesla would announce the 100kWh pack and the pricing already. The 100D will have an EPA rated range of well over 300 miles and that will have several positive benefits.

    Long term I would agree that a 120kWh pack would be wonderful and I do think it will happen. The big question for me is will it happen before the warranty expires on my CPO car.

    Last week we did a road trip from Salt Lake City to Denver and back. The 85 was great while on I-70, but when you get off the supercharger highway thats when a larger pack would make things easier. If the Model S could offer packs in 60, 90 and 120 sizes that would be just about perfect. Let people decide how much range they are willing to pay for.
     
    • Like x 3
  6. GSP

    GSP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,476
    As others have posted, I also would prefer to see more Superchargers and more destination chargers. I think that would be more helpful and more cost effective than increased range.

    That said, 300+ mile range from 100 kWh (for the S) will be very helpful. To have a 400 mile option someday will be helpful to some people, allowing less daytime charging on long trips, but most people will not ever need it. More than 400 miles seems totally unneeded to me. I would prefer more charging locations instead.

    GSP
     
    • Like x 2
  7. SΞXY P100D

    SΞXY P100D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    Jersey
    Would a battery leasing business model work?

    If weight-to-range issue persists as battery tech advances, it might be economical to rent a high capacity battery, say 150-200kWh for the occasional long range trip instead of lugging around all that extra weight in our daily commute. Reducing the weight alone should help with battery range and performance. Should apply to many of us, not all, of course.
     
  8. Model 3

    Model 3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    2,135
    Location:
    Norway
    Ask "Better Place" :p

    ... or Tesla.
     
    • Like x 2
  9. James Anders

    James Anders Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    Location:
    Southampton, PA
    Thinking more about this...I wonder how much more range would be possible with a 90 kWh battery that's half the weight? The weight reduction alone would be about twice the weight difference between a MS and MX.

    Might be 25% more range.
     
  10. SΞXY P100D

    SΞXY P100D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    Jersey
    Better Place was ahead of its time I guess. :confused:
     
  11. GSP

    GSP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,476
    Maybe.

    I don't think the time will ever come for battery swapping to be popular. Supercharging is more convenient, much less expensive, and less wear & tear on the battery and vehicle.

    GSP
     
    • Like x 1
  12. Plan B

    Plan B Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,385
    Location:
    EARTH
    I agree, not that I would be able to afford it anyway. The way that I look at it is that Tesla only has so many things that can now do to create a buzz for sales and range is that one big thing now so it will most likely be at the end of the year to boost sales.
     
  13. SΞXY P100D

    SΞXY P100D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    Jersey
    Still I'm not too crazy about driving with a heavy battery for frequent short commutes. Seems wasteful to me.

    Hopefully in the future, lightweight battery technology would make this a moot point.
     
  14. Model 3

    Model 3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    2,135
    Location:
    Norway
    I rather think they want to boost deliveries at the end of the year, not only sales... With long time transportation to make deliveries in Europe and Asia/Oceania they will have to announce it within about a month from now to be able to make the deliveries in this markets before the end of the year.
     
  15. Cloxxki

    Cloxxki Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,366
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    I agree, rental auxiliary battery packs should be considered for road trips into "the wild".

    A factor little discussed is the COST effect of the Gigafactory. Cell cost will tuble. And 30% lower as I recently read seems highly conservative for what Tesla is doing there.
    Not only will the first iteration of the 2170 cells replacing the 18650's improve density from a better steel can to content ratio, it would also likely mean a reducing in WEIGHT for a stuffed battery pack. Oh, and if true, the S and X pack can already accomodate 18700's of they were available. So on top of the ~10% density improvement (starting with the soon to be announced 100kWh 18650 pack), the 2170's would addd another ~8% in just the thickness of the pack used more fully (if true). So a stuffed 2170 pack for the S/X would be ~119kWh right there, when the first 2170's make it to S/X.
    And this 119kWh pack may well weigh less than the 2012 85kWH and 2016 90kWh packs. While costing a whole lot LESS due to in-house giga production.
    Since people happily pay top dollar for fully packed &X cars to get the best speed and range, a slight update to the S&X chassis might be warrented to fit more cellls still. It could be just a bit thicker, or cooler: an extended chassis. Just add 30cm to the 2nd row leg space, extend pack the same, perhaps thicker where convenient and have 150kWh or so right there. At the same cost as the 2012 85kWh pack, or less, including the extra steel and cabling for the chassis. 150kWh would guarantee absurd acceleration beyond the typical 1/4 mile displays. And, super quick supercharging to 200-250 miles to really get somewhere in a hurry.
    The 2012 Model S didn't have a biggger bettery because more couldn't fit the car (IMO), but because the price would become too rediculous. With, being a young company, risk to have to replace it a few times. In 2017, all is different.
     
  16. Model 3

    Model 3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    2,135
    Location:
    Norway
    The 30% was a minimum cost reduction pr. kWh with their original plans for the GF-I. They said also "maybe closer to 50% when the GF is in full operation" (2020). After this they have developed their plans for the GF-I quite some, so I do think their now expecting even more...
     
    • Like x 1
  17. Plan B

    Plan B Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,385
    Location:
    EARTH
    Ok it's "around the corner" let's do this already #Tesla
     
    • Like x 1
  18. Cloxxki

    Cloxxki Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,366
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Excellent.
    This further supports that if they are making profit on current 60 and 70 models, they sure as anything will be able to really crank up the capacity of S/X packs with the new 2170 cells, even increase the physical pack volume, and not give up a dime of profits. They could do some tweaks and swap the current 90's car price (really 100 or close already it seems) for slightly oversized 150's that weigh pretty much the same, and not be any worse for it. By the time GF starts making 2170'sin decentt volume, obviously. The first pre-production batches are going to cost a fortune.
    I would not be surprised if refresh owners could soon get a software upgrade to 98kWh or so, even 100. Then when Tesla makes a fair effort with the 2170's, we'll see 119kWh (+40% from 2012 85kWh per JB). And possibly right away 130kWh (if indeed 2170's fit in the same orientation despite +5mm nominal increase in size and not calculated by JB). Another approach: "today's" likely 100kWh +10% + 8% = 119kWh. As little as 1cm thicker battery pack (4 cells stacked on their sides rather than 1 standing up) might bring +20kWh or so. It could come higher in the car reducing indoor space, or reduce road clearance, or force the car to lift 1cm. This ~135-140kWh mega pack would still be in the same weight range as a current 90 pack. For at least +50% range. Froma tight 300 miles to 450 miles.

    A detail, but a battery pack twice the number of cells will have more than twice the range. If a 6kWh reserve suffices in a true 60kWh pack, in a 120kWh pack you'd have access to not 54 but 114 = +111%, not +100%. The added weight is therefor negated or better. I realize the state of charge would be lower for the biggerpack "empty", but it would less likely be an issue since the car is so less likely to not make it somewhere.
    Such big batteries would never be pressed ashard as current 90's are, and bigger cells are reportedly actually better able to offer high discharge. So a mega pack would be presed relatively quite lightly even when deliveringall the power the dual motors can handle. No need for smart fuses anymore? Another cost saving.
     
  19. Topher

    Topher Energy Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,416
    Location:
    Maine
    I don't think so. Reserves are in essence on a per cell basis. You don't want any cell getting to a critically low level, twice as many cells means twice the needed reserve. Also more cells equals more weight equals less range. So twice the pack size gives less than twice the range.

    Thank you kindly.
     
    • Like x 1
  20. Cloxxki

    Cloxxki Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,366
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    I was treating the reserve as a keep-the -car-limping reserve of absolute nature. And I did mention the weight implying reduced range.
    If Tesla engineers do want the bottom (say) 10% of any cell part of any pack size, then of course you are right.
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC