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

Potential update suggestions

Discussion in 'Model X: Battery & Charging' started by Tiger, Jun 3, 2017.

?

What would you like to see in the next Model S/X version

  1. +30% more range

    31 vote(s)
    57.4%
  2. 80% charge time in less than 15 minutes, V3 supercharging

    35 vote(s)
    64.8%
  3. reduced weight from more optimal wiring harness (on the order of 3000m -> 100m)

    7 vote(s)
    13.0%
  4. better build quality

    18 vote(s)
    33.3%
  5. a more luxury option

    17 vote(s)
    31.5%
  6. at least one service center in my country

    3 vote(s)
    5.6%
  7. at least one supercharger in my country

    3 vote(s)
    5.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Tiger

    Tiger Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Estonia
    • Disagree x 2
    • Like x 1
  2. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,260
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
  3. blastum

    blastum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Illinois
    it's energy dense, not energy efficient. I don't even know what an energy efficient battery would.
     
  4. Haxster

    Haxster Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2016
    Messages:
    516
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #4 Haxster, Jun 3, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
    At some point (but not yet), you reach diminishing returns on range and other factors become more important. Think faster charging, more charger availability, lower vehicle cost, size, weight, et al. Future battery (and other) technologies and manufacturing efficiencies will move us there.

    IMO, bigger denser batteries, by themselves, don't improve anything but range. And their extra weight can actually reduce performance and distance/Watt.

    Based on Wikipedia data, incremental weight is about 20 pounds per KWh. So, going from 100 to 130 KWh would add about 600 pounds. Or be like carrying around a 400 pound election hacker and one of his friends under your car.

    ICE vehicles could have larger fuel tanks for more range, but I can't think of any consumer cars that offer optional larger tanks for more range (size, weight and safety issues aside). Mostly they push for improved fuel efficiency and performance...not range.
     
  5. Chuq

    Chuq Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    977
    Location:
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Can you (or a mod) change the clickbait subject line?
     
    • Like x 8
  6. Akikiki

    Akikiki A'-Lo-HA ! y'all

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Location:
    Kaneohe
    If 90+% or even 80% of all your driving was within the range of a full tank of gas and at the end of the longest week or day of driving you still had 5-6 gallons of gas left. What would be the point of adding another 15 gallon tank to the back or in the trunk and carry all that extra weight around all the time? Sure, sure it might be useful once every other month. But instead of carrying that extra weight that I never use, I would go rent a longer range vehicle for those few times.

    I suspect there are folks that would benefit from a 200 kWh battery, but there's probably not enough people that need it and need it often enough and willing to pay for it to justify the development of it. Just as Haxster so perfectly pointed out, there's a point of diminishing returns.
     
  7. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    3,686
    Location:
    Colorado
    Yep, and engineering is always an exercise in trade-offs. Once reasonable targets in each category have been met, the game changes to one of balance.

    Said another way, pretty good in every way sells a lot more cars than great in some areas and mediocre in others.
     
    • Like x 1
  8. Akikiki

    Akikiki A'-Lo-HA ! y'all

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Location:
    Kaneohe
    Well done. Very very well said.
     
  9. Yinn

    Yinn Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    Behind you
    At first I was like..WOAH. 130kwh. Then I was like woah...a survey. So I had to shift my thinking from TAKE MY MONEY to seriously contemplating this conundrum.

    What would I like to see in my next S or X...

    I figured less supercharging time, but I would only need that if I needed more range. If I had more range, I would't need to supercharge. If I don't need to supercharge, I wouldn't need a supercharger in my county. But range is largely affected by aerodynamics. Stuff like panel gaps and alignment affect aero quite a bit, so better build quality would = more range. Then I figured, less weight also = better efficiency, which is more range. It's also better handling.

    But that left me with two other options: at least one service center in my country, and a more luxury option. I don't think the next new version of the X or S can come with a personal service center. So I had to eliminate that one. So it was down to more luxury or less weight. More luxury would most likely mean more weight with more features and heavier materials. So really I was down to less weight or more weight. It boils down to 4 of your options vs 1, so I went with the 4.

    This is the only logical choice.

    What made up my mind was that I decided if I had less weight, more range, and better efficiency, I probably wouldn't have opened a thread called 130kwh battery, any takers. Thus ending my train of thought..
     
    • Funny x 1

Share This Page