Poll on battery size.

[widodh]

300m / 480km

Still doubting about upgrading to sig

 

[cinergi]

300 (sig)

 

[doug]

So where's the actual poll??

I went ahead and added one at the top of this thread. Please vote. :smile:

 

[vfx]

I need more information before deciding. Performance differences, weight, charge profiles, projected longevity etc. of the newer cells. 160 will not be enough, but 230 may do.

Same here. Handling? Features tied with mileage? Service plan? Tire costs?

 

[William13]

Sig 300. I am glad the bigger pack will be available. Seven years, fast driving, cold weather. 300 miles* 70% capacity*70% fast driving and security=147 miles. By that time if there are any range issues left new batteries should be much better and a good deal cheaper.

 

[widodh]

Sig 300. I am glad the bigger pack will be available. Seven years, fast driving, cold weather. 300 miles* 70% capacity*70% fast driving and security=147 miles. By that time if there are any range issues left new batteries should be much better and a good deal cheaper.

Same here, I like to drive a bit faster, so on a shorter drive I can 'hit the gas' if I want to.

 

[Hache]

230 miles. 160 miles won't be enough for some longer trips I do from time to time a year. And extra 10K for the 300 miles battery seems to much for me, moreover since we know that deterioration should be quicker for the 300 miles pack for the 2-3 first years.

 

[mnx]

300 (sig). Do I need the 300 for 99.9% of my driving? Of course not, but I want to be able to take it everywhere. Roadtrips, the beach etc. One of my favourite beaches is 222km from my house. That might be pushing it, we'll see.

 

[Tempus]

barring further info/developments from tesla, i'm looking at the 230 mile pack. Mileage is irrelevant for my daily commute, or just driving around town. Normal "longer" roadtrips are roughly 180 miles, which the 230 might be ok for (would like to hear more about practical range though for each type of battery). That plus the significant cost increase of the 300 is the basis of my current thoughts.

 

[Todd Burch]

Just wanted to point out, as someone alluded to earlier, that we need to keep in mind that the results of this poll are going to be biased heavily toward the 300 mi end of the spectrum.

A good number of the active users on this site are existing Roadster owners--and therefore are financially well-off (especially if they're lucky enough to ALSO be getting a Model S!)--so their capacity to afford the 300 mi pack is going to far exceed the typical population.

 

[loganss]

I already can't "afford" the 160 Tesla Model S base price but to cover myself for the occasional long trip the 230 fits me better.

So I'm aiming to get the 230mi pack. A test drive will solidify my purchase.

 

[Iz]

230. It would have been so cool if the 300-mile pack was the base model.

Even a $5k increase instead of $10k increase for pack sizes would have been nice too!

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

160 miles given my daily 55-mile-roundtrip commute (mixed city/hwy). Good enough for those sporadic 100-mile weekend trips as well. Will fall back to my wife's Mini Clubman (or a Hertz rental) for looonger trips!

 

[shark2k]

230 miles. 160 miles won't be enough for some longer trips I do from time to time a year. And extra 10K for the 300 miles battery seems to much for me, moreover since we know that deterioration should be quicker for the 300 miles pack for the 2-3 first years.

Pretty sure the 300 mile battery is an extra 20k from the base price and the 230 mile is an extra 10k, FYI.

-Shark2k

 

[herbvdh]

I have come to the conclusion that a 160 mile battery will be more than adequate for my driving. When I analyzed my worst day of driving I found I was under 60 miles which really amazed me as I thought it was more like 75 to 80 miles.

 

[neroden]

300 (sig). Again, not because I need the 300. I'm never going to use it; I'll only need the 230, and even then only for a "safety margin", as 160 would actually cover all my routine round trips, barely. But I finally concluded the extra cost was worth it to get the Signature (and therefore get the car earlier). I've been chomping at the bit to get an all-electric car since about 2008 (but the Roadster was simply unsuitable) and my family would appreciate fewer months of having me complain "It's not OUT yet" daily. At the moment it looks like it would be over six months difference. Anyway, the extra range could come in handy, might mean that the car retains a 230 mile range for a very large number of years.

 

[WhiteKnight]

I thought 160 miles but then I read that the batteries drop to 70% capacity in 7-10 years. Also if you like to really accelerate or you're driving at highway speeds (85mph here in ATL) then you're not getting 160 miles you're getting something less. If you look at Tesla's Roadster spreadsheet (I know it's apple to oranges but it's all we've got) it's 55kwh battery has a range of 243 miles at 54 mph but if you crank it up to 76 mph the range drops by 33% to 163 miles. And then you figure you want to have some juice in reserve for a trip, plus they don't want you pulling below 10% on a regular basis (or topping off above 90% - I think). So now it seems like the only option for me is 300 mile pack (maybe squeak by with 230 miles) since 300 x 70% x 67% x 80% = 113 miles. And I haven't even trid to factor in having the car full of my big fat relatives.

 

[Mycroft]

Yep, better too much range than too little. You'll also get the car faster with the 300 battery.

 

[Todd Burch]

Although for most driving where range is important (highway speeds) drag is the overwhelming contributor to a loss in range, keep in mind that the Roadster (I believe) has a drag coefficient of .35, whereas the Model S is said to be .27, which is 23% smaller. Since air resistance is proportional to the drag coefficient, the loss in range due to faster driving should be about 20ish% smaller than is seen with the Roadster. So keep that in mind. Using the Roadster chart is going to be strongly on the conservative side.

 

[smorgasbord]

...keep in mind that the Roadster (I believe) has a drag coefficient of .35, whereas the Model S is said to be .27, which is 23% smaller. ... Using the Roadster chart is going to be strongly on the conservative side.

The drag equation:

(see Wikipedia)

shows us that total drag is from the drag co-efficient (Cd)multiplied by the surface area (A). The Model S is wider and taller than the Roadster, so that will negate some of the advantages of the lower drag co-efficient.