Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Optimal Battery Size and Driving Habits

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

You're right, the reasons for 300 mile range in a gas car are different.

Range is important in an EV for any number of reasons, not just long trips:

1. When the power goes out for a day or three. (That seems to be happening more often.)

When the power goes out, you can't get gas. Gas pumps need electricity.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/electric-car-owners-unfazed-by-storm/

@mario: of course your degradation is less from cycles on a huge battery pack, you're spending tens of thousands of dollars to drag around hundreds of pounds of batteries you never use...you're basically buying two battery packs and dragging them around at the same time, just making the car worse in the meantime...which is why we have no 500mi car now. You still have age degradation though. also, Discontinuing the 60 would make no sense long term. Reintroducing the 40 well could.
 
Last edited:
Well I think all of the Model S used in Estonia have needed a range charge multiple times and some have been around only a month or two. I've personally needed it tens of times already (and really needed it, have made a couple of trips of 100% -> <10%). It's not that I'd be lugging around unused batteries. Even if I don't need the full capacity 25 days of the month I still need it the other 5 days and you can't have varying battery size, you have to account for those worst case scenarios if they are plentiful enough and I'd say anything above once every other month is plentiful enough as you're not going to be driving two cars just for those occasions nor would you want to inconvenience yourself with rentals (all kinds of restrictions besides the point of being ICE, could I transport 4 dogs in one who are all shedding for example? not likely without hefty fees). I think there will be city cars and universal cars. City cars really have no business on the highways, but universal cars need to be of decent capacity to do decent road trips and there I don't see the 40kWh ever coming back, I even foresee with the price reductions the 60kWh disappearing. In any case, in the luxury segment of Model S forget the 40kWh battery. You'll get it with Gen-III.
 
As a LEAF owner, I'd like to own a Tesla primarily for the range, and I'm certainly not alone. Yes, there are other benefits. However, because we are in the mountains, even some of our 45 mile drives would be easier with more battery capacity.

My guess is that ~ 200 miles of range will be the sweet spot for the mass market in the coming decade. This is enough range to go just about anywhere (assuming Superchargers) but low enough to keep prices reasonable (assuming economies of scale, etc.). That Tesla Motors understands this bodes well for the company's future.
 
As a LEAF owner, I'd like to own a Tesla primarily for the range, and I'm certainly not alone. Yes, there are other benefits. However, because we are in the mountains, even some of our 45 mile drives would be easier with more battery capacity.

My guess is that ~ 200 miles of range will be the sweet spot for the mass market in the coming decade. This is enough range to go just about anywhere (assuming Superchargers) but low enough to keep prices reasonable (assuming economies of scale, etc.). That Tesla Motors understands this bodes well for the company's future.
The key will be a solid build-out of destination charging. If most hotels, ski resorts, amusement parks, etc. had Level 2 charging, then I completely agree that 200 miles is a sweet spot. Until then, I really appreciate the extra miles in my 85kWh pack (and, frankly, could have used a bit more a few times).
 
The key will be a solid build-out of destination charging. If most hotels, ski resorts, amusement parks, etc. had Level 2 charging, then I completely agree that 200 miles is a sweet spot. Until then, I really appreciate the extra miles in my 85kWh pack (and, frankly, could have used a bit more a few times).

I think that's Tesla's motivation on the destination charging scheme. And of course they also understand contention, which is why they're so keen to donate HPWCs.
 
Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

Who is going to buy a 40 S for more money and less range than a Gen3? Answer, few to none, which is why it will never happen.

Who buys a 750Li for more money and less performance than an m3? These are different markets. The s will probably become more luxurious as compared to the gen3 when it comes out. Otherwise you could ask the same about any other offering between the gen3 and S. they will differentiate them somehow. Some people just like to have the "best". Many of these people are buying the S now, which is why there is a high ASP. Many of these people are on these forums, which is why there is a disproportionate attitude the $20,000 options are affordable and reasonable for all consumers. They really aren't.

Also, the 40 S already *did* happen, so I don't see how you say it never will.

@mario I don't know the driving situation in Estonia, but in the USA it is far less than 1/6 of the time that people drive more than 230 miles in a day. There is also ample public charging and more and more Superchargers. Plenty of people would benefit from a 160 mile range and 20000 dollars in their pocket, particularly if supercharging were possible (in my estimation, leaving supercharging off of the 40s and making it an option on the 60s was a way to encourage higher option levels on early cars, until they decided to just axe the 40 entirely - there isn't a technical reason a 40 couldn't charge at a high rate, if a 22kWh Leaf can charge at 50kW, then surely a 40kWh Model S can charge at 100kW).
 
Last edited:
Because Tesla CEO said the 40 S was "crippled" and "Our customers told us it was a mistake" with a 4% take rate.

And 160 mile range is under ideal conditions driving at a steady 55 mph.

The latter point was refuted above, this was obviously a justification not a reason. The former point is subjective, and I believe was a result of these people zooming around in P85s and Roadsters for the past several years. Obviously Tesla wanted to give a good public justification for cutting the model they had been talking about for years, the "50,000 dollar car," so they threw whatever they could at it to see if it stuck. It did, and they managed the PR well, and they did the right thing for the 40 customers who remained. I don't have a problem with any of that, in context, as an investor. But as an EV advocate, and someone who wants the market to be larger, and someone who wants to breathe fresh air, and so on, as Tesla says is their mission, the 40 ought to exist again.
 
@mario: of course your degradation is less from cycles on a huge battery pack, you're spending tens of thousands of dollars to drag around hundreds of pounds of batteries you never use...you're basically buying two battery packs and dragging them around at the same time, just making the car worse in the meantime...which is why we have no 500mi car now. You still have age degradation though. also, Discontinuing the 60 would make no sense long term. Reintroducing the 40 well could.

If people want Teslas with smaller battery, why is 60kWh sold on such small percentage? Almost all cars sold are with 85 kWh battery.
 
Who buys a 750Li for more money and less performance than an m3?

Who buys a 750Li for more money and less performance than an Model S?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The 40 should exist in a smaller car where the weight penalties are smaller, not the Model S. Back to your original comparison, the 40 is like a BMW 728i with a 10 gallon tank, there are very few people that want that.
 
If people want Teslas with smaller battery, why is 60kWh sold on such small percentage? Almost all cars sold are with 85 kWh battery.

If people want such a large battery, why are Leafs sold on such a large percentage?

First of all, what's the percentage? I'm fairly sure there is no public information stating that, other than estimates, and nothing current. Second, Tesla does encourage the higher models, obviously, as a car company would want to do, particularly if they are supply constrained (they want to focus on higher margins). Third, the reason is because Tesla is attracting the "I want it all" buyer and other makes are attracting the "budget" buyer. Once you get past the 50k threshold, tons of people drop out of the market. The ones who remain will often not hit another psychological barrier until 100k. Right now, Tesla does not need to address this market, but they will have to eventually. Ignoring it will not help long term.

@c041v comparing to gas tank sizes is irrelevant, because gas tank sizes have a different penalty. It does not cost $20,000 for a larger gas tank, and a larger gas tank does not weigh down your car by 400lbs and make it less efficient in general.

And yeah, you're right, who does buy a 750Li instead of a Model S? It would be crazy to. But that's what I'm getting at, there's something for everyone. Right now Tesla doesn't need to address everyone, but they eventually will have to. Which is why I say the 40 "well could" be beneficial to bring back. Dropping the 60 would do exactly the opposite of that.
 
The latter point was refuted above, this was obviously a justification not a reason. The former point is subjective, and I believe was a result of these people zooming around in P85s and Roadsters for the past several years. Obviously Tesla wanted to give a good public justification for cutting the model they had been talking about for years, the "50,000 dollar car," so they threw whatever they could at it to see if it stuck. It did, and they managed the PR well, and they did the right thing for the 40 customers who remained. I don't have a problem with any of that, in context, as an investor. But as an EV advocate, and someone who wants the market to be larger, and someone who wants to breathe fresh air, and so on, as Tesla says is their mission, the 40 ought to exist again.

The latter point can't be refuted because it is a fact.

It is absolutely a reason. Even if people make a logical decision that a 40 S is all they need they end up underwhelmed at the end of their customer experience. That is not good for expanding the EV market or the Tesla brand. Tesla wants all S customers to be thrilled and become advocates for the brand and EVs.

The 40 S was a mistake, they recognized it, corrected it and should never be repeated.
 
The latter point can't be refuted because it is a fact.

It is absolutely a reason. Even if people make a logical decision that a 40 S is all they need they end up underwhelmed at the end of their customer experience. That is not good for expanding the EV market or the Tesla brand. Tesla wants all S customers to be thrilled and become advocates for the brand and EVs.

The 40 S was a mistake, they recognized it, corrected it and should never be repeated.

The latter point absolutely can be refuted, as has been done above. I think it's interesting you talk about the underwhelming customer experience when a) I have heard nothing of the sort from 40 owners, b) the car barely exists so which customers are you talking to, and c) the refutation included the "underwhelming customer experience" of stringing along 40kWh reservation holders for years, delivering thousands of cars before them, constantly pushing back their delivery dates, and otherwise not making it clear that the car would ever exist, thus causing many of them to cancel or move to another model. Which was all included in the refutation.

Canceling the 40 S was a mistake, was not good for expanding the EV market or the Tesla brand, they have not yet recognized it (or have, but that's why they did so much damage control), and they should correct it and never repeat it...once they get to the point where demand is waning, ASPs/margins aren't as crucial, etc. i.e., long-term, which is what we're talking about.
 
If people want such a large battery, why are Leafs sold on such a large percentage?

Because Leafs are sold to hard core environmentalist that are willing to forgo a lot of practicality in order to reduce their carbon foot print. Roughly 2k $30k LEAFs per month sold in the USA is not exactly burning up the sales charts for a major OEM like Nissan. The goal of Tesla is to go beyond that niche and sell to the broader market. That requires more range and bigger battery packs.

First of all, what's the percentage? I'm fairly sure there is no public information stating that, other than estimates, and nothing current. Second, Tesla does encourage the higher models, obviously, as a car company would want to do, particularly if they are supply constrained (they want to focus on higher margins). Third, the reason is because Tesla is attracting the "I want it all" buyer and other makes are attracting the "budget" buyer. Once you get past the 50k threshold, tons of people drop out of the market. The ones who remain will often not hit another psychological barrier until 100k. Right now, Tesla does not need to address this market, but they will have to eventually. Ignoring it will not help long term.

With an average selling price of $105,981 last quarter the 60 S can't be more than a small fraction of sales.

Tesla does need to address the sub $50k market but not with its flagship sedan.





Right now Tesla doesn't need to address everyone, but they eventually will have to. Which is why I say the 40 "well could" be beneficial to bring back. Dropping the 60 would do exactly the opposite of that.


Tesla does not need to address everyone, it does not need to chase every microniche market. That is too expensive and stupid. Not even VW does that even though it has brands from Bugatti to SEAT and Skoda.

Tesla wants to increase coverage of the market to fill 95% or so of customer wants.

IF that other 5% can't be convinced to buy from a broad portfolio of options and would rather buy a micro niche car from another company so be it.
 
The latter point absolutely can be refuted, as has been done above. I think it's interesting you talk about the underwhelming customer experience when a) I have heard nothing of the sort from 40 owners, b) the car barely exists so which customers are you talking to, and c) the refutation included the "underwhelming customer experience" of stringing along 40kWh reservation holders for years, delivering thousands of cars before them, constantly pushing back their delivery dates, and otherwise not making it clear that the car would ever exist, thus causing many of them to cancel or move to another model. Which was all included in the refutation.

Canceling the 40 S was a mistake, was not good for expanding the EV market or the Tesla brand, they have not yet recognized it (or have, but that's why they did so much damage control), and they should correct it and never repeat it...once they get to the point where demand is waning, ASPs/margins aren't as crucial, etc. i.e., long-term, which is what we're talking about.

Keep in mind the 40 kWh cars are actually 60 kWh. No one knows how well a true 40kwh performs except Elon and Tesla, and I take them at their word that it wasn't compelling enough to sell.
 
The latter point absolutely can be refuted, as has been done above. I think it's interesting you talk about the underwhelming customer experience when a) I have heard nothing of the sort from 40 owners, b) the car barely exists so which customers are you talking to, and c) the refutation included the "underwhelming customer experience" of stringing along 40kWh reservation holders for years, delivering thousands of cars before them, constantly pushing back their delivery dates, and otherwise not making it clear that the car would ever exist, thus causing many of them to cancel or move to another model. Which was all included in the refutation.

Canceling the 40 S was a mistake, was not good for expanding the EV market or the Tesla brand, they have not yet recognized it (or have, but that's why they did so much damage control), and they should correct it and never repeat it...once they get to the point where demand is waning, ASPs/margins aren't as crucial, etc. i.e., long-term, which is what we're talking about.

Tesla never sold a 40 S. They sold some cars with software restricted 60 batteries to those customers who insisted on getting what they requested. The result is that you can't say for sure that the 40 delivers any sort of equivalent performance to what might have been delivered as a 40.

The Model S will never be sold with a 40. It is a luxury car and even the 60 battery is limited, but some people want to save and still experience the quality offered in a Model S. If no consideration of range or loss of charge when not plugged in, fine. Most who buy luxury cars do not want any consideration of inconvenience. You can certainly make an argument for a 40 in a Gen 3, but not in a Model S. And referring to those sold with a 40 is not entirely accurate since they really didn't. They are 60's limited by Tesla magic.