I've had my P85 since 2012, drive 16K per year, have never come close to running dry -- but IMO there's no such thing as "enough range". My pack is now down to 225 miles on max daily charge without resorting to Range Mode, and I do not want to stress it further by going below 30% if possible. Yes, this is California, lots of Superchargers -- but LOTS of Tesla drivers, too! We remember the early days in 2012-13 when, even with very few Model S's on the road, there were waiting lines at the few Supercharger stations. So despite the recent build out of Superchargers, we're viewing all those coming M3's with some trepidation. Wait till 250K M3's hit the road -- we'll ALL want to avoid Superchargers as much as possible! We recently drove to redwood country, and didn't enjoy getting down to 20 miles before reaching the next Supercharger, so are drooling over the idea of that 200 kwh pack.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Rumored 130 kWh Model S in light of Roadster announcement
- Thread starter AnxietyRanger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
if you had the option now, would you choose to buy a model s p100d for 135k or a 2020 Tesla roadster for 200k?
...or would you buy a Model S P130D in 2018 at 150k?
Or maybe they really can just fit 21-70s that much more tighter (packaging and cooling-wise) - especially when in the Roadster they can overflow to frunk/trunk...
A 200kWh MS/MX would cost... The same ballpark of the cost of US$ 200k the base Roadster NG will. And very likely wouldn't fit, by a wide margin.
A 120/130kWh pack on the other hand is likely with 2170 cells.
Also, the new 70/100kWh packs using 2170 cells will have longer range too, due to lower weight.
Tesla is deploying a lot of extra super chargers and rolling out 40 stall sites. Have some faith.
More sites and many more stalls is far more cost effective than huge packs that won't be used in 99% of trips.
A 120/130kWh pack on the other hand is likely with 2170 cells.
Also, the new 70/100kWh packs using 2170 cells will have longer range too, due to lower weight.
Tesla is deploying a lot of extra super chargers and rolling out 40 stall sites. Have some faith.
More sites and many more stalls is far more cost effective than huge packs that won't be used in 99% of trips.
FutureShock
Best Coast Denizen
Not necessarily. If Elon had a new battery chemistry/breakthrough, he likely would've trumpeted the fact and sent the stock price into orbit, eh?
Electrek, who had a guy at the Roadster/Semi event, said that when their guy sat in the Roadster, he felt like he was sitting higher up than you'd expect in a car that size, and thus theorized that there were TWO layers of cells under him in the Roadster.
Which sorta makes sense, given the 200 kWh spec plus the small footprint of the Roadster, plus the fact that it's not a two-seater but a 2+2, plus Elon touting the Roadster as having all kinds of storage space/the glass roof stores in the trunk (i.e. the trunk didn't get stuffed full of batteries).
So, my best guess is that it's a double-layer pack plus whatever incremental ongoing gains in battery energy density that Elon expects over the next 3 years that will add up to the 200 kWh spec.
YMMV, depending on what's fun to believe. It's magic unicorn horn dust if you want it to be, since Elon isn't coughing up details yet.
.
Last edited:
I was assuming that the proto would have 2 layers of 100 kWh pack. The big question is whether they can get the energy density high enough to put it in 1 layer by 2020. I'm sure that's the goal.
Have you considered reducing the battery degradation - instead of charging them to 100% and draining to 30% to only charge to 90% and drain to 20% or even better, charge to 85% and drain to 15%..
Esme Es Mejor
Member
Agree a 200 kWh pack would be a challenge to fit in the S unless there's been some very large improvement how much capacity they can pack per unit of volume. Tesla could likely build a 200 kWh pack for only about $5K more within the next year or two. Pre-GF sourced batteries were thought to be about $180/kWh and Tesla is targeting $100/kWh, and Elon has spoken very confidently of such by about 2019. Even if they have already been down to $150/kWh, the 200 kWh pack would only cost $5K more to make than a 100 kWh pack at $150.
So, maybe they couldn't do this realistically as far as packaging, but, as far as price, if the pack will fit in the car, they could keep the price increase quite modest if they wanted to.
Not sure where exactly I read it, but I do seem to recall some battery expert (from Tesla?) saying that charging higher is always preferable to draining lower. Especially if you do not let the fully charged battery sit for long periods after charging I guess.
badboy1980
Member
I think we should hear something on this in January. It's been a while since there has been a significant upgrade to the Model S by Tesla's standard. The last being 100kwh battery and AP 2.0, both over a year ago now.
badboy1980
Member
Also the Model 3 was launched only a few months ago, then bang the roadster/truck. Both of these were only months apart. I agree that Tesla is big and bad enough to work on several fronts simultaneously.
Tesla is still burning lots of cash. Tooling up for M3 is expensive. Even with M3 line pumping 5k cars/week, if Tesla is to go full throttle with 2nd/3rd/4th GF, Model Y/Pickup Truck design and Semi/NewRoadster production they will need lots of cash.
The 100kWh pack is big enough. I hope Tesla will sell bigger packs at a premium until there's competition from other vendors. It shouldn't be cheap.
PS: I'm not a stockholder. I'm not defending this to make a buck.
Similar threads
