[Poll] Given the Trade-offs, What's the Minimum Acceptable Range for a Tesla?

[FutureShock]

Yes, but the question also states "Given the Trade-offs" which changes the question.

Since the 500+ Tesla doesn't exist today, we have to assume what those trade-offs are. So if I assume the battery technology will be much better and for $2K over today's price I can get 500+ mile car as, and it will only be 100lb heavier costing me only 0.1s for 0-60, then the Trade-offs are definitely worth it. 600mile range Model 3 for $37K, definitely worth it, even is 0.1s slower 0-60 than the $35K version.

Even-money says you're an engineer.

And you make a decent point, but, no one can really predict exactly what the future speed of battery improvement will be.

So in the absence of that, ppl go by their needs. If someone says they want 500+ miles of range, then that's what they want, they're not making some sort of super-exact Nostradamus-like prediction that battery development will enable that at a reasonable weight/cost/space trade-off in X number of years (or at least, they shouldn't).

What would be more reasonable is to look at the present and what the trade-offs are like right now... for instance, Tesla will increase the range of the Model 3 from the base 220 miles on up to 310 miles (+90 miles) for you if you give them $9K more dollars.

And in the Model S class (i.e. luxury), they'll up the range from 259 miles to 335 (+76 miles) if you fork over $20K more (although you also get a higher top speed and very slightly faster 0-60 accel along with that).

So, roughly extrapolate from that... assuming Tesla ever wants to offer a ULR (Ultra-Long Range) product. They may not, or they may have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it by EV competitors engaging in 'range wars' with them. But no one can say for sure yet.

Far as weight goes, ppl can look at the specs for the MS 75D vs the 100D and note the weight delta easily enough. And if the same specs are already out for the base Model 3 vs the long-range 3, they can do so there as well.

The interior room delta? If there's not direct data on interior volume for each model to compare, ppl can calculate from the likely energy density how much room X number of additional kWh in batteries takes up.

So I guess I'm not really seeing the major issue... ppl want what they want, if it gets delivered before they get sick of waiting then they'll buy it (and if not, then they'll buy something else), and no one can predict the speed of future development, especially when it comes to batteries.

I've heard that major battery breakthroughs are 'just around the corner' for well over a decade now, but somehow, we're still using Li-ion (first sold in 1991), aren't we? So, yeah.

.

 

[GSP]

Just to clarify, the poll is asking what's the minimum acceptable range to YOU, the poll voter (and I think most ppl did understand it that way).

As you yourself say, everyone has different needs. So it's more about your own personal needs, rather than what you think would be the minimum acceptable range in general/for most other people/in theory.

It's about what YOU want or need. 'Cuz ppl tend to spend money based on personal needs, not theoretical ones or what someone else needs.

(And based on that, seems like 275 miles was probably the poll choice for you, since you say you wouldn't be happy with 200 miles yourself, but that 270 was working out nicely for you).

.

Thanks for the clarification.

I re-read the poll and your post, and still do not see any expression of that intent. To me, they are asking for what we think is the minimum range car that Tesla should design and produce.

I indeed would have picked 275 miles for my needs, which is exactly how I voted with my pocketbook. Since buying the car, there have been many road trips where I have been very glad I waited until I could get an 85 kWh battery, instead of getting the more affordable 60 or 70 kWh models. Today I would have a more difficult decision, as the S75D and the expanded supercharger network might be enough for me, and the 100 kWh battery is a significantly higher cost add than my 85 kWh battery was.

GSP

 

[NewTMSMan]

Sub-2 second 0-60 times?!

I think that'd put my spleen in the next state.

.

Going to need pressurized suits to drive one soon

 

[FutureShock]

Poll has hit 100 votes. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far.

Results so far:

Median vote so far is for 250 miles minimum acceptable range
At 200 miles, 34% total find that to be acceptable range (or more)
At 250 miles, 62% total find that to be acceptable range (or more)
At 300 miles, 79% total find that to be acceptable range (or more)
At 350 miles, 90% total find that to be acceptable range (or more)
At 400 miles, 94% total find that to be acceptable range (or more)

(Of course, some may not find the trade-offs involved with longer-range cars to be acceptable or preferable, i.e. they'd want to pay less, have a lighter car, have still more interior room, etc).

.

 

[whitex]

Even-money says you're an engineer.

You win there!

So in the absence of that, ppl go by their needs. If someone says they want 500+ miles of range, then that's what they want, they're not making some sort of super-exact Nostradamus-like prediction that battery development will enable that at a reasonable weight/cost/space trade-off in X number of years (or at least, they shouldn't).

What would be more reasonable is to look at the present and what the trade-offs are like right now... for instance, Tesla will increase the range of the Model 3 from the base 220 miles on up to 310 miles (+90 miles) for you if you give them $9K more dollars.

And in the Model S class (i.e. luxury), they'll up the range from 259 miles to 335 (+76 miles) if you fork over $20K more (although you also get a higher top speed and very slightly faster 0-60 accel along with that).

So, roughly extrapolate from that... assuming Tesla ever wants to offer a ULR (Ultra-Long Range) product. They may not, or they may have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it by EV competitors engaging in 'range wars' with them. But no one can say for sure yet.

Far as weight goes, ppl can look at the specs for the MS 75D vs the 100D and note the weight delta easily enough. And if the same specs are already out for the base Model 3 vs the long-range 3, they can do so there as well.

The interior room delta? If there's not direct data on interior volume for each model to compare, ppl can calculate from the likely energy density how much room X number of additional kWh in batteries takes up.

So I guess I'm not really seeing the major issue... ppl want what they want, if it gets delivered before they get sick of waiting then they'll buy it (and if not, then they'll buy something else), and no one can predict the speed of future development, especially when it comes to batteries.

I've heard that major battery breakthroughs are 'just around the corner' for well over a decade now, but somehow, we're still using Li-ion (first sold in 1991), aren't we? So, yeah.

.

The problems are that prices vary wildy. 60->75 upgrade on the S is $2K, on the X is $5 or $9K (sorry, I don't have the X, waited patiently for its release and ended up buying another S instead because found the X to be too impractical). As for 500+ mile battery, I would have to assume double the battery weight today. It would be hard for me to estimate what even my P85D would accelerate if it was weighed down with an additional 1400lb, maybe more as more weight means higher Wh/m so maybe even a double 100KWh batteries would not deliver 500+ miles. Acceleration may suck, handling may such even more (something most here don't even talk about).

Bottom line though, your survey question probably should have skipped the "given the trade-offs" and instead do something like "if you could pay $1000 per 10 miles of range, how much range would you buy?". I'm guessing that was kind of your intent here, I could of course be completely wrong. I would leave out acceleration as unchanged to focus on one thing at the time - how much do people value their ranges.

 

[FutureShock]

You win there!

LOL. Sorry, it was kinda obvious.

Engineers always want black-and-white answers to everything, even though it's not always a black-and-white, clearly-spelled-out-choices kinda world. Sadly.

The problems are that prices vary wildy. 60->75 upgrade on the S is $2K, on the X is $5 or $9K (sorry, I don't have the X, waited patiently for its release and ended up buying another S instead because found the X to be too impractical).

If the price trade-off for range varies widely from model to model (and you're right, it does), then that's all the more reason to leave it as 'given the trade-offs' in the poll question, and let voters translate it to the specific model they're interested in (whether it be the S, X, or 3).

As for 500+ mile battery, I would have to assume double the battery weight today. It would be hard for me to estimate what even my P85D would accelerate if it was weighed down with an additional 1400lb, maybe more as more weight means higher Wh/m so maybe even a double 100KWh batteries would not deliver 500+ miles. Acceleration may suck, handling may such even more (something most here don't even talk about).

I'm actually not a fan of 500+ miles range EVs (though 300-400 sure would be nice), but even so, I'm not certain about your assumptions here.

For instance, the 100 kWh MS has a 335-miles range in 100D form. Why would it need to "double" its battery pack in order to get to a 500 mile range? Yes, there'd be more weight, but weight is mostly a range-penalty only when accelerating or going uphill (it'd add to tire rolling resistance too, but not in an earth-shattering sort of way).

So, I'd assume more like a 60% larger battery pack to get to 500 miles range. I don't think that'd weigh quite "1400 lbs" more either, given that the 85kWh pack weighs 1200-1300 lbs (depending on cited source)... and that was back in 2013. Energy density per kg does keep improving in small ways, and will continue to do so.

Now, maybe 900-1000 lbs more for +60 kWh? Yeah, probably. Which is why I personally am not a fan of 500+ mile range EVs. Also doesn't help that I've seen pics of the 'reclining lounge chair' rear seats on the Lucid Air (drool), and can see how something like that would likely be impossible if you had batteries stuffed simply everywhere. Or perhaps you'd have virtually no trunk room instead.

Bottom line though, your survey question probably should have skipped the "given the trade-offs" and instead do something like "if you could pay $1000 per 10 miles of range, how much range would you buy?". I'm guessing that was kind of your intent here, I could of course be completely wrong. I would leave out acceleration as unchanged to focus on one thing at the time - how much do people value their ranges.

I wouldn't do it that way simply because the price paid per mile of added range varies so much depending on model. The 3 just has a fundamentally different price point and audience as opposed to the S and X. And presumably the Y will have a different audience than any of those, when it shows up.

But, it is an interesting subject you bring up, and it'd be cool to see a poll from you addressing it. Cheers.


.

 

[FutureShock]

Samsung seems to be talking up 600km (about 375 miles) at being the desirable standard for EVs via its next generation of batteries. Though said Samsung batts won't see production 'til 2021.

But the EV 'range wars' are coming, no doubt.

Samsung SDI Announced Next Generation Battery For 600 km (373 Mile) BEVs, Rechargeable In 20 Minutes!
.

 

[FutureShock]

Poll results seems to be pretty static at this point... with 124 votes in, they're as follows:

Median vote so far is for 250 miles being the minimum acceptable range.
At 200 miles, 34% total find that to be acceptable range (or more).
At 250 miles, 61% total find that to be acceptable range (or more).
At 300 miles, 79% total find that to be acceptable range (or more).
At 350 miles, 91% total find that to be acceptable range (or more).
At 400 miles, 95% total find that to be acceptable range (or more).

These are almost exactly the same as the results @100 votes, so, static.

What do I get out of these results?

The biggest jumps in acceptability occur at 200, 250, and 300 miles.

250 miles is enough for the majority (though at 61%, it's not an overwhelming majority).

150 miles or less is only acceptable to a very few (4%).

Very long range (375 miles on up to 500 miles or more) is a requirement for only a few as well (9%).

At 350 miles range, most everyone is on-board (91%). Beyond that, it's fair to say that diminishing returns set in.

If I were to pick a 'sweet spot' that was acceptable to most without hitting diminishing returns, it'd be in the 300-350 mile range area, which gets about 80% to 90% of ppl on-board (perhaps not coincidentally, this is the 100D's spec, and also that of the LR Mod3).
.

 

[tkulogo]

I suspect as time passes, people become more comfortable with EV's, and chargers become more common, the acceptable range will decrease. I'm sure some people will lay down the extra coin for more range, but like me, many people will be more concerned with performance and price.

 

[mspohr]

When you think about it, you only need enough range for your daily use. Just plug in at night and have full range each morning.
For trips, there are Superchargers

 

[Skotty]

Just to clarify, the poll is asking what's the minimum acceptable range to YOU, the poll voter (and I think most ppl did understand it that way).

As you yourself say, everyone has different needs. So it's more about your own personal needs, rather than what you think would be the minimum acceptable range in general/for most other people/in theory..

This is interesting to think about, because I have a hard time separating the two. The minimum acceptable to me has a lot to do with what the minimum acceptable range would be in general.

 

[dhanson865]

When I bought my used leaf in NC and drove it home to TN my first few hops to Chademo chargers were at varying speeds. The entire trip was over 200 miles and the most I made on one charge was just over 80 miles at low speeds.

* first hop was 10 miles, duh, drive without a care
* next hop was uphill (think Appalachian mountains) about 70 miles. I could do it at 50-55 mph but not if I kept with the flow of traffic at 60+. Even at 50-55 mph I arrived with only ~3 miles range remaining at an L2 and charged for an hour to make the hop to a Chademo a few miles away.
* 5 mile or so minihop with about that much range remaining, drove back roads to get to the Chademo.
* next hop was 30 miles or so, I drove 60+ with the flow of traffic
* next was a 85 mile leg with no Chademo in existence. I had to do 45 mph (helped by a long construction zone) but it was a pain in the rear having semis tailgating me for the majority of the highway miles (often I was boxed in between 6 or more semis, I couldn't afford to break away from the pack, yet I had to slow down on hills more than they wanted to). Stopping for a L2 charge with a 3.x KW on board charger wasn't an option. Any significant charge would have pushed me into the next day adding a hotel stay to the trip.

Now that trip was several years ago. If I did the same trip today I could Chademo charge one more time and keep my speed up on the last hop(s). I'd take a different route to hit more Chademo chargers and it cost me more but it'd be higher speed driving and probably cut the time of the overall trip.

Also worth noting the car didn't have LRR tires (the used car dealer put crappy tires on it) and construction left me driving on rough pavement that also cut range. A Leaf with proper tires and on normal roads could have gone faster.

Make that a 150 mile range car instead of a 75 mile range car and suddenly I can keep up with highway traffic and still make the hop to the next Chademo or Supercharger. Won't even have to worry about the time of day, speed of traffic, construction detours, or rough pavement, just drive it and charge when you get to the next working high speed charger. I can also avoid paying the cost in time and dollars to charge to full when I'm at an expensive Chademo station.

Anything past that is luxury for people that like to speed or necessity for those who live in an area with poor charging infrastructure.

 

[Viking1]

When you think about it, you only need enough range for your daily use. Just plug in at night and have full range each morning.
For trips, there are Superchargers

Unless, of course, you go to an area, and stay for a while, with no superchargers or level 2 chargers. My recent visit to a national park required me to use level 1 charging. I expect my next EV will have additional range. I voted 250 min., but I would like 400+. Of course depending on the price. I just got my car last year. I hope by 5-6 years such a car will be available, and reasonably priced, with advancement in battery tech.

 

[mspohr]

Unless, of course, you go to an area, and stay for a while, with no superchargers or level 2 chargers. My recent visit to a national park required me to use level 1 charging. I expect my next EV will have additional range. I voted 250 min., but I would like 400+. Of course depending on the price. I just got my car last year. I hope by 5-6 years such a car will be available, and reasonably priced, with advancement in battery tech.

I think the question is "minimum" acceptable range. I interpret this to mean "meets daily needs". It doesn't necessarily mean all possible situations. There will always be exceptions such as you describe but these are not minimum daily needs.
I too have been to National Parks with limited charging (L1 from a plug in the room at Jackson Lake Lodge and L2 at the friendly local gas station and L1 plugged into the room air conditioner of a motel in West Yellowstone with the cord draped over the 2nd floor railing to my car below) but I look fondly back on these times as a fun experience. Both of these areas now have Superchargers.

 

[Viking1]

I think the question is "minimum" acceptable range. I interpret this to mean "meets daily needs". It doesn't necessarily mean all possible situations. There will always be exceptions such as you describe but these are not minimum daily needs.

That is correct. That is why I said 250 is my vote for minimum, but I would LIKE 400+, which is what I get in my ICE car.

L1 plugged into the room air conditioner of a motel in West Yellowstone with the cord draped over the 2nd floor railing to my car below)

Very creative!

 

[Johann Koeber]

I just went from a 3 year old SP85 (90 % range 330 km) to a brand new MX100D (90 % range 404 km). The travel time on SC enabled trips went down by a lot. Fewer SC visits and faster charging (because of less throttling) add up to significant time savings.

Yes, 1,000 km a day trips were possible with the S; with the X they will be more fun.

 

[Johann Koeber]

Please remember it is discouraged to use the top 10 % of the battery regularly, same goes for the bottom 10 % of the available range. So a 300 mile range car will enable 240 mile trips without recharging; unless you give it a full charge.

 

[FutureShock]

I think the question is "minimum" acceptable range. I interpret this to mean "meets daily needs". It doesn't necessarily mean all possible situations. There will always be exceptions such as you describe but these are not minimum daily needs.

Yes, but... what if a person takes fairly regular long roadtrips?

These would not be daily events, but would still occur 'often enough'.

At what point do they figure into the equation of what is acceptable or not, in terms of range?

(And then there are those of us who don't want to be significnatly inconvenienced even once in awhile).

.

 

[mspohr]

Yes, but... what if a person takes fairly regular long roadtrips?

These would not be daily events, but would still occur 'often enough'.

At what point do they figure into the equation of what is acceptable or not, in terms of range?

(And then there are those of us who don't want to be significnatly inconvenienced even once in awhile).

.

Only you can decide. This poll is for your opinion.
If you feel the minimum you can get by with is 500 miles, then vote that option.

 

[FutureShock]

Only you can decide. This poll is for your opinion.
If you feel the minimum you can get by with is 500 miles, then vote that option.

Fair enough. The interpretation of 'minimum acceptable range' is indeed very much a personal thing.

.