Rumored 130 kWh Model S in light of Roadster announcement

[Struja]

I think one of the differences in opinions I see is the difference between cold climate Tesla owners vs warm climate.

When we are at -20 Celsius and I lose 30-40% of my range, all I can think is boy would I love 1000km in range. Knock off 40% and you still have 600km. I will take more range over faster charging any time.

 

[Chaserr]

If you're only losing 40% you're doing great! I lose more than half in my car when it gets really cold.

 

[vigge50]

I see some people here talks about 30% range improvements if we goes to 2170 cells and I understand that it goes after Tesla talked about 30% improvement but I’m not sure if that’s right. Now we don’t know the exact capacity of the battery pack but when I did some calculations on the 80,5 kWh number from EPA I found that the energy density for Wh/dm^2 was nearly the exact same as the 18650 cells in the 100 kWh battery if you take the 102,6 number. So the only improvement you would get is that there are 8% taller. For this they need to redesign the battery pack and maybe the underside of the hole car. Maybe the 30% improvement is Wh/kg and then the range would affect little more and probably little better driving experience or the 30% improvements is just talk.

 

[Chaserr]

2170 does hold as much as 40% more energy per cell, but due to larger dimensions you don't get the full 1:1 increase in total capacity. Packs built with 2170 will absolutely have a substantially larger capacity for the same external size, though.

 

[vigge50]

2170 does hold as much as 40% more energy per cell, but due to larger dimensions you don't get the full 1:1 increase in total capacity. Packs built with 2170 will absolutely have a substantially larger capacity for the same external size, though.

But the volume of a 2170 cell is 47% larger when a 18650 cell so you will fit mush less cells in a pack with 2170 cells if you have the same external dimension. The only advantage is that as I say they are 8% taller but that means you have do redesign the pack and maybe the hole underside of the car.

 

[henderrj]

But the volume of a 2170 cell is 47% larger when a 18650 cell so you will fit mush less cells in a pack with 2170 cells if you have the same external dimension. The only advantage is that as I say they are 8% taller but that means you have do redesign the pack and maybe the hole underside of the car.

Precisely. And, for the 8th millionth time, whatever chemistry goes into the 2170 s can go into the 18650s. You'll get almost the entire improvement with simple chemical changes. The actual size of the individual cells will help, but not enough to be worth a complete redesign of the pack for the current vehicle. If they completely redesigned the S and the X. Then we'll see something amazing. In fact I figure a 200 kilowatt hour battery.

 

[Chaserr]

In fact I figure a 200 kilowatt hour battery.

Absolutely! They obviously intend to manufacture batteries that large already for the Roadster 2020.

 

[Krash]

How would the chemistry be much better if the cell energy goes up 40% when the cell volume goes up 47%?

 

[Chaserr]

Chemistry isn't dependent on the packaging, it can be used in any cell. The improvements come from the new cells' larger interior surface area. The new cell is 14% wider and 7% taller, but holds 40% more energy. It's a positive trade-off in energy density.

In terms of performance, we've seen the Model 3 handles heat better than my car too, the the new cells are either easier to cool or Tesla has improved the way they manage temps on these new packs.

 

[jaguar36]

Absolutely! They obviously intend to manufacture batteries that large already for the Roadster 2020.

The roadster needs a battery that large to hit its power/acceleration numbers. I doubt they'd put a 200kwh pack in an S/X They've already indicated that they think 100kwh is the sweet spot from a range/weight/cost standpoint. I'd be they put a 120/130kwhr pack out there in the future, but I doubt we'll ever see a 200kwh pack.

 

[David99]

Chemistry isn't dependent on the packaging, it can be used in any cell. The improvements come from the new cells' larger interior surface area. The new cell is 14% wider and 7% taller, but holds 40% more energy. It's a positive trade-off in energy density.

In terms of performance, we've seen the Model 3 handles heat better than my car too, the the new cells are either easier to cool or Tesla has improved the way they manage temps on these new packs.

I would be careful with the assumption. Let the M3 have a few years of Supercharging and see how it holds up. The 90 packs are a good example of how 'better' turned out to be not so much better when it comes to longevity.

 

[Chaserr]

Is it confirmed that the Model 3 uses a new chemistry? I thought it was using the same chem as the 100kwh packs to avoid throwing too many curveballs into the new design at once.

 

[henderrj]

The roadster needs a battery that large to hit its power/acceleration numbers. I doubt they'd put a 200kwh pack in an S/X They've already indicated that they think 100kwh is the sweet spot from a range/weight/cost standpoint. I'd be they put a 120/130kwhr pack out there in the future, but I doubt we'll ever see a 200kwh pack.

I'm absolutely convinced we will see a 200 kilowatt-hour pack in the S and X, but maybe after the pickup. Obviously they'll need it for that, and there's no reason not to put it into a new design s or X. We all agreed that the chassis will have to be changed to accommodate this new pack, so it won't happen until, and unless, they rebuild the s. There is no reason at all not to drive the S further up Market. The success of the 3 and the Y clearly shows they can cover the low/mid range with that. Meaning there is a great sales opportunity for a higher yet spec car. Let those cars sell for the 30 to 60 range and make the S the 90 to $170k range. (Which, by the way, should keep used values up quite well!)

 

[David99]

They need to make the S and X worth the extra money and a big battery is part of it. At some point battery size will not matter any more same as range with gas cars isn't a selling point. But currently we are not there yet. In cold climate and freeway speed the range of even a 100D is still too short. Especially cold weather kills range.

 

[iffatall]

... 70 -75 MPH for 4 hours is pretty much time for a break and we can get another 300 Mi in the time it takes us to eat and stretch...

Are you saying this from experience? I'd repeat what I said before:

To those questioning why we might need a bigger pack since we have a lot of superchargers now:

Having a 260 mile range pack (I have an 85 kWh) does not mean you get to drive 260 miles between charging stops when on a trip. Not even 200 miles. In my experience, more often than not, the gaps in my stops are at about 150 miles. Considering road conditions, you have to deduct something from the rated range. Then you have to deduct some more because you want to have a buffer. And even then, it is not like the moment you reach 10% level you can stop wherever you are to start supercharging. Often you have to stop sooner even though the SC coming up is too close because the following one is too much of a stretch for your comfort. And it gets worse in winter.

I am sure many experienced road trippers will agree with me.

In my opinion, having a 500 mile range is desirable no matter where one lives, as long as they go on trips. With it, range anxiety will completely go away, and I might go so far as to say we can even ditch the excessive planning currently needed. Of course a ridiculous price tag will make it less desirable, but I am just talking about the range in isolation.

 

[smilepak]

Are you saying this from experience? I'd repeat what I said before:

I agree with @iffatall

The 70D is rated for 242, but as of late max charge has been around 230ish. On a normal trip, realistically you would get approx 190-200 range out of it, assuming normal weather conditions, road conditions, and during the day. That is on average rated as 310 - 320 kwh/mi

In Southern California where everything is very spread out, that is not much. I don't like to go below 15% - 18% contingency, as one would know that isn't very much miles that you have in between to travel with.

Going from, let say Riverside to Redondo Beach to meet up with some friends, then decided to head up to Hollywood for dinner and then drive around a bit before heading home.

1. Not all locations have EV charging you can use while having dinner. And if they did, there isn't enough to support the EV population we have.

2. It is not a great thing to tell people you have to swing by a SC to charge for 30 minutes or 45 minutes, while they wait for you

ICE vehicle is an issue no matter how little the mileage gets you. Even if you drive a hummer and burn fuel, there always a gas station in almost every corner and it only take minutes to fill up.

 

[Luontohippi]

Chemistry isn't dependent on the packaging, it can be used in any cell. The improvements come from the new cells' larger interior surface area. The new cell is 14% wider and 7% taller, but holds 40% more energy. It's a positive trade-off in energy density.

In terms of performance, we've seen the Model 3 handles heat better than my car too, the the new cells are either easier to cool or Tesla has improved the way they manage temps on these new packs.

As far as I know Model 3 handles heat better because it has permanent magnet motors instead of induction motors. In Model S also the motors are problematic.

 

[jaguar36]

As far as I know Model 3 handles heat better because it has permanent magnet motors instead of induction motors. In Model S also the motors are problematic.

I doubt the Model 3's motors are substantially better at not-overheating than the S's. Regardless its irrelevant because the inverter overheats just as quickly as the motor does.

 

[henderrj]

As far as I know Model 3 handles heat better because it has permanent magnet motors instead of induction motors. In Model S also the motors are problematic.

Welcome to the Forum! I hate to be negative on your very first post but I don't have any idea why the physics would make any difference between the permanent magnet and induction Motors. And, the Model S really doesn't have any problems with the motors. The problems have been with the gearbox and other pieces like that.

 

[GatorGuy]

I doubt the Model 3's motors are substantially better at not-overheating than the S's. Regardless its irrelevant because the inverter overheats just as quickly as the motor does.

They're in a different league. There is a YouTube video of someone tracking his M3 at Laguna Seca. He burned out his brakes before the motors overheated.