Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Gotta love that. "Yeah man, so I just pulled in to the SuperSwapper to swap my Brick dude... it's all good".
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Proof of Tesla's plan for battery swapping
- Thread starter Right_Said_Fred
- Start date
Yes, but since Elon has said repeatedly in the past that they're planning on doing it I'm assuming this analysis is flawed in some way. I'm not sure how, but I'm waiting to find out. I used to feel that way about upcoming Apple announcements. I couldn't see how they could work, but when Steve presented them they suddenly made perfect sense. :wink: I've since learned to wait for the details before deciding whether an idea makes sense or not. All the talk about Metal-Air replaceable batteries just seems like so much pie in the sky nonsense to me.
Why does the idea of a mobile battery-swappingvehicle always go ignored??? It makes so much sense; 1) they would be mobile. 2)They would already have all the electricity needed to run them in the batterypack itself. 3) They can be assembled at the factory. 4) They could berecharged and stationed at the supercharger stations. 4) They could be updated/replacedeasily. 5) There would be no reason to buy expensive real estate in places bigcities. The list goes on and on.
Edit: What is the problem w/copy and paste from openoffice on tmc? Iespell will not download to my computer, perhaps it is mycomputer and not tmc?
Edit: What is the problem w/copy and paste from openoffice on tmc? Iespell will not download to my computer, perhaps it is mycomputer and not tmc?
Last edited:
Okay, tomorrow I will be traveling through TX, OK, and KS. I'll need to stop three times for charging. How much do you think it would cost to have a 4 GPM truck to deliver the battery to where I would want to swap it? What if there were other people traveling in different parts of OK and KS? How many mobile swapping trucks would you need? Kind of makes the swapping station look cheap, doesn't it? Not to mention having a fleet of trucks to recharge the Model S would pretty much nullify any carbon gains the Model S made.
I am not saying the come to you for the swap unless there was an emergency. They would bestationed, or parked at the superchargers. They would simply be charging packswhile no vehicles are using the chargers. You could then swap the battery someother place in the parking lot. Also, about the carbon gains, I never saidand/or thought the vehicle would be powered by an ice, personally I would likefor them to be powered from a solar powered supercharger.
An interesting discussion here. Little different than the other thread. I though feel that they both complement each other. Here's what I posted on the other thread. I thought it wont be out of place here.
A add-on battery in the frunk seems to be the most logical idea. It has many advantages in addition to the one you already highlighted
- Tesla's approach to problem-solving is a very simplistic. They will not propose anything which makes the whole thing complex and then adds cost. The longer and complex the battery swapping is, the costlier it becomes. Just imagine lots of people waiting for battery swap, more people leads to more infrastructure and again hidden costs.
- People will have ownership of their battery. The whole idea of swapping with someone else's battery will not take hold. As mentioned in the post. The only way it can work is that used batteries will be swapped to the next vehicle, to keep inventories low and decrease costs related to storage. If your batteries are swapped then there is no point in owning battery and Tesla will need to refund current owners.
- If Tesla decides on main battery pack swap then leasing is the only way to go. It can make Model S even more affordable. Now how to please people who bought the battery pack, no leasing costs and no swapping costs. Charge others who lease the battery, lets say 2000 $/year for 60 kWh and 4000 $/year 85 kWh for a 6 year lease. This way you can have lower upfront costs and be flexible if life situation changes. Just agree to higher battery lease if you move and 60 kWh doesnt suit you. I still think swapping main battery is a cumbersome an unlikely idea, I like my odds with a frunk add-on.
- There is another post on forums,where owners have discussed how quickly the pack can be changed. It seems it is quite an extensive operation taking certainly more than 15 minutes, even if it is automated the time to mount the car needs to be factored in, as the cost of installing robotic machine. The add-on battery is just put in the frunk and you drive away. How easy would that be.
- They need to offer this solution to every Model S owner, irrespective of current battery size. Storing different capacity packs will again lead to increase in inventory. How about one size fits all add-on battery? No matter what your current capacity is, come and have the add-on installed and drive away. This will ensure that 85 kWh don't feel cheated by 60 kWh owners getting 85 kWh in swapping.
- They can have these add-on battery charged overnight, esp when electric rates are lower and they will be ready to go. These can be charged by solar too. Elon owns solar-city and deploying more solar panels to charge add-on batteries can only be good for that company. I think it is brilliant to use your current company to jumpstart your next big thing.
- Tesla needs to be sure, which battery tech is for future. There is lot of noise in battery tech and everyday you hear that some new battery tech will give these many miles. Point is, that battery tech is still very young and in rapid R&D phase. It would be foolish to bet big on any tech at this time and integrating that tech in large battery packs for swapping. Take the next tech, have it ready for smaller add-on packs and you can test the tech in the field. If something better comes along, then use that technology in add-on packs. This way Tesla can test many different techs at the same-time without actually integrating it in large battery packs.
- Tesla owners need freedom to roam anywhere. The battery needs to be such that it can be swapped at any service center. Somebody gave a good analogy with red-box. That's exactly the approach Tesla needs. Pick up a battery at one service station, keep it as long as you need it, return to any service center on your way. Your original battery is always on your car, no need to go back to the same service station to get your pack back.
- How should they charge? There has to be an uniform fee structure without any significant difference between 60 kWh and 85 kWh owners. Both should be equally eligible for such facility. The new gen add-on batteries will be expensive, so you only lease it for a minimum charge. Tesla can charge for the juice in the pack, free to them if they use solar to charge. Basically, the application needs to be widespread and still cheaper than buying a tank full off gas (lease cost + charge costs) for it to succeed.
- This can also earn extra revenues for the company, as supercharging is free. However offering add-on packs will reduce congestion on superchargers and will reward drivers who are willing to wait a bit, but still offer convenience to drivers who are in hurry. Ultimately everybody wins.
Hope you all like the reason. Feel free to comment. Waiting for all announcements to be over quickly. The suspense is toomuch to take.
A add-on battery in the frunk seems to be the most logical idea. It has many advantages in addition to the one you already highlighted
- Tesla's approach to problem-solving is a very simplistic. They will not propose anything which makes the whole thing complex and then adds cost. The longer and complex the battery swapping is, the costlier it becomes. Just imagine lots of people waiting for battery swap, more people leads to more infrastructure and again hidden costs.
- People will have ownership of their battery. The whole idea of swapping with someone else's battery will not take hold. As mentioned in the post. The only way it can work is that used batteries will be swapped to the next vehicle, to keep inventories low and decrease costs related to storage. If your batteries are swapped then there is no point in owning battery and Tesla will need to refund current owners.
- If Tesla decides on main battery pack swap then leasing is the only way to go. It can make Model S even more affordable. Now how to please people who bought the battery pack, no leasing costs and no swapping costs. Charge others who lease the battery, lets say 2000 $/year for 60 kWh and 4000 $/year 85 kWh for a 6 year lease. This way you can have lower upfront costs and be flexible if life situation changes. Just agree to higher battery lease if you move and 60 kWh doesnt suit you. I still think swapping main battery is a cumbersome an unlikely idea, I like my odds with a frunk add-on.
- There is another post on forums,where owners have discussed how quickly the pack can be changed. It seems it is quite an extensive operation taking certainly more than 15 minutes, even if it is automated the time to mount the car needs to be factored in, as the cost of installing robotic machine. The add-on battery is just put in the frunk and you drive away. How easy would that be.
- They need to offer this solution to every Model S owner, irrespective of current battery size. Storing different capacity packs will again lead to increase in inventory. How about one size fits all add-on battery? No matter what your current capacity is, come and have the add-on installed and drive away. This will ensure that 85 kWh don't feel cheated by 60 kWh owners getting 85 kWh in swapping.
- They can have these add-on battery charged overnight, esp when electric rates are lower and they will be ready to go. These can be charged by solar too. Elon owns solar-city and deploying more solar panels to charge add-on batteries can only be good for that company. I think it is brilliant to use your current company to jumpstart your next big thing.
- Tesla needs to be sure, which battery tech is for future. There is lot of noise in battery tech and everyday you hear that some new battery tech will give these many miles. Point is, that battery tech is still very young and in rapid R&D phase. It would be foolish to bet big on any tech at this time and integrating that tech in large battery packs for swapping. Take the next tech, have it ready for smaller add-on packs and you can test the tech in the field. If something better comes along, then use that technology in add-on packs. This way Tesla can test many different techs at the same-time without actually integrating it in large battery packs.
- Tesla owners need freedom to roam anywhere. The battery needs to be such that it can be swapped at any service center. Somebody gave a good analogy with red-box. That's exactly the approach Tesla needs. Pick up a battery at one service station, keep it as long as you need it, return to any service center on your way. Your original battery is always on your car, no need to go back to the same service station to get your pack back.
- How should they charge? There has to be an uniform fee structure without any significant difference between 60 kWh and 85 kWh owners. Both should be equally eligible for such facility. The new gen add-on batteries will be expensive, so you only lease it for a minimum charge. Tesla can charge for the juice in the pack, free to them if they use solar to charge. Basically, the application needs to be widespread and still cheaper than buying a tank full off gas (lease cost + charge costs) for it to succeed.
- This can also earn extra revenues for the company, as supercharging is free. However offering add-on packs will reduce congestion on superchargers and will reward drivers who are willing to wait a bit, but still offer convenience to drivers who are in hurry. Ultimately everybody wins.
Hope you all like the reason. Feel free to comment. Waiting for all announcements to be over quickly. The suspense is toomuch to take.
For those who may have missed the news in the Better Place thread and elsewhere:
Better Place files for bankruptcy | The Times of Israel
Better Place to be liquidated - Globes
Israeli electric car venture Better Place seeks to dissolve - Business - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
Death of Better Place: Electric car co. to dissolve | JPost | Israel News
Better Place CEO: A missed opportunity - Globes
An issue that hadn't really occurred to me, until it was written:
Better Place files for bankruptcy | The Times of Israel
Better Place to be liquidated - Globes
Israeli electric car venture Better Place seeks to dissolve - Business - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
Death of Better Place: Electric car co. to dissolve | JPost | Israel News
Better Place CEO: A missed opportunity - Globes
An issue that hadn't really occurred to me, until it was written:
Firstly, battery swapping is complementary to Superchargers.
Secondly, Consider how useful are Superchargers or swap station for servicing/maintenance use?
Thirdly, how can Tesla vehicles be used as airport taxis?
Tesla's flat pack approach is the natural way to do battery swap, see old Japanese Better Place video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGr9q3yHPiE , the box in the boot is not the natural way to do battery swap.
And there is zero additional costs for a Tesla to have battery swap, so if 95% of users don't want the option, its not a cost to them. If 5% of users represent business that want the option, it allows the use of a Tesla for a high mileage user that it would otherwise be ineligible for.
^^^
I've seen other Better Place demos.
I haven't read this entire thread, but you're way off on "there is zero additional costs for a Tesla to have battery swap". Why do you think Better Place went bankrupt? It costs money to design and build the stations, staff and maintain them, pay other expenses (insurance, permits, licensing, taxes, utilities, etc.), keep batteries on hand and charge them.
As for your other claims that if 95% of users don't want it, well, that means a VERY high cost to Tesla and/or the users since the costs need to be spread out.
I think you need to go back and think about some fundamentals of business first.
I've seen other Better Place demos.
I haven't read this entire thread, but you're way off on "there is zero additional costs for a Tesla to have battery swap". Why do you think Better Place went bankrupt? It costs money to design and build the stations, staff and maintain them, pay other expenses (insurance, permits, licensing, taxes, utilities, etc.), keep batteries on hand and charge them.
As for your other claims that if 95% of users don't want it, well, that means a VERY high cost to Tesla and/or the users since the costs need to be spread out.
I think you need to go back and think about some fundamentals of business first.
Last edited:
^^^
Tesla model S has a swappable battery, it takes 10 minutes if done by manual labour, unscrewing bolts, thats all that is needed (and an activity suitable for concurrent action by a robot/jig). the battery pack is both structural and quickly removable. The electric coupling just slides in and out like a power socket and the fluids use a snap on coupling, no human interaction required. There is nil direct additional costs to make a Tesla Model S battery swap at the vehicle for the bill of materials.
Better Place had many challenges why it was premature to the market, primarily battery range, quick changeability and brand power/ desirability of vehicle. Tesla has those 3 sorted out first which greatly assists the viability of battery swap.
Tesla's rollout of Superchargers is funded by its marketing budget, If they roll out out supercharger at Service Centers they could very well be covered by the maintenance budget. After all a co-located automated battery swap facility would be very useful for Tesla Service Centers.
Tesla has a vision for Battery Swapping, but it uses 60-85kWh batterys and full country coverage of SuperChargers, with a car that won both motortrend car of the year and rated a 99/100 for Consumer Reports. Thats fundamental different than relying on outside manufacturer like Renault.
Cwerdna consider for a moment, what if the Fluence ZE had 3-4 times the range and a network of fast charging already deployed, Better Place could've operated with 1/12 the swap stations that they they were forced to deploy because of the relatively small Fluence battery. There are city bound business users who need more than 265 EPA range between charging, battery swap unshackles them, and as they are high mileage, the economics get pretty good. Its not a consumer product, its a business product.
Tesla model S has a swappable battery, it takes 10 minutes if done by manual labour, unscrewing bolts, thats all that is needed (and an activity suitable for concurrent action by a robot/jig). the battery pack is both structural and quickly removable. The electric coupling just slides in and out like a power socket and the fluids use a snap on coupling, no human interaction required. There is nil direct additional costs to make a Tesla Model S battery swap at the vehicle for the bill of materials.
Better Place had many challenges why it was premature to the market, primarily battery range, quick changeability and brand power/ desirability of vehicle. Tesla has those 3 sorted out first which greatly assists the viability of battery swap.
Tesla's rollout of Superchargers is funded by its marketing budget, If they roll out out supercharger at Service Centers they could very well be covered by the maintenance budget. After all a co-located automated battery swap facility would be very useful for Tesla Service Centers.
Tesla has a vision for Battery Swapping, but it uses 60-85kWh batterys and full country coverage of SuperChargers, with a car that won both motortrend car of the year and rated a 99/100 for Consumer Reports. Thats fundamental different than relying on outside manufacturer like Renault.
Cwerdna consider for a moment, what if the Fluence ZE had 3-4 times the range and a network of fast charging already deployed, Better Place could've operated with 1/12 the swap stations that they they were forced to deploy because of the relatively small Fluence battery. There are city bound business users who need more than 265 EPA range between charging, battery swap unshackles them, and as they are high mileage, the economics get pretty good. Its not a consumer product, its a business product.
Battery swapping may or may not be part of the future for BEV, but what I do not understand is how everyone keeps saying it will take X minutes to do a swap (I've heard people say anywhere from 3 mins to 10 mins).
Im sorry...but that is completely unreasonable! (NOT impossible....but just not reasonable or realistic). You are talking about lifting a car up, unscrewing the battery, bringing a new battery, bolting on new battery, AND THEN.....REBOOTING THE "COMPUTER". (Yes it's essentially a COW (computer on wheels))!!!!
the reboot with diagnostics to make sure everything is working properly takes about 30 minutes. And in a PERFECT world (state of the art battery swapping station with NASCAR pit crew trained personnel) I was told battery swap could be done in about 8 minutes. That's 38 mins total......in a perfect world with no room for any hiccups.
Enhancing and building out the Supercharging network IMHO much better/useful strategy. I'm sure a few years down the road we will be able to get a full charge in 30 mins...
Reboot likely not necessary as long as external power is provided during the procedure.
hans
P631
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
What's your position at Tesla and which of the engineering departments do you work at? Are you deeply involved in the battery pack/module engineering and swapping aspect or are you primarily in the "COW" division? If so, you guys should look in to why a reboot would take a frikkin' half-hour!
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Not sure how many times this has been posted already, but if Better Place can do it within a minute, I doubt the engineering team in Tesla can't get similar times:
Last edited by a moderator:
No, Better Place couldn't do it, so it filed for bankruptcy. Battery swapping is not a engineering problem at all. Yes it can be done even under one minute.
There just won't be enough people willing to pay the price of swapping.
People have this **** idea that somehow they won't have to pay for for the battery if it isn't theirs.
Who will pay for that battery stacks across the world, just waiting? Those batteries are getting old just as every other is.
I am willing to bet ~1k that in 10 year time there will be more than 10 times as many SC as there will be TM swapping stations.
Battery Swapping will be possible/offered at Tesla Motors Service centers. Nothing more.
There just won't be enough people willing to pay the price of swapping.
People have this **** idea that somehow they won't have to pay for for the battery if it isn't theirs.
Who will pay for that battery stacks across the world, just waiting? Those batteries are getting old just as every other is.
I am willing to bet ~1k that in 10 year time there will be more than 10 times as many SC as there will be TM swapping stations.
Battery Swapping will be possible/offered at Tesla Motors Service centers. Nothing more.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm talking purely about the engineering as there's plenty here that still feel like engineering is the biggest problem. There's already been a couple of other threads discussing the viability of various ways to do swapping.
I pointed out three different ones:
1) Monthly battery lease (like Renault/Better Place)
2) Rental battery contract (get your pack back at end of trip)
3) No-contract swap (keep whatever pack you get)
The math worked out to be that Tesla can pay for the packs (retail cost $34k) if they charged $40/cycle assuming there is no "second life" for the pack after it reaches 70% degradation. If you assume there is a second life, the cost of the pack is only $12k meaning only $14/cycle.
The packs also can be used for load leveling for superchargers during times of low swap demand. I used $.10/kWh (this gives $7k over the before-70% life of the pack) but the actual monetary amount might be higher because it reduces demand charges from the utility (which can be up to $16 per kW!).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...plished/page12?p=342973&viewfull=1#post342973
The biggest thing that killed Better Place is a mismatch between actual customers and the invested infrastructure (much more infrastructure than customers). Fisker was killed by the same thing (planned/contracted for volumes of 15k/year, actual numbers 5x lower).
Tesla's going to have the customers first and then expand/plan the infrastructure accordingly (they are doing the same with the supercharger network).
Last edited:
Similar threads
