Rumored 130 kWh Model S in light of Roadster announcement

[FutureShock]

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.

Pretty unlikely without a major breakthrough. The Roadster’s a small-footprint car.

.

 

[SteveG3]

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.

Fair point. I can see reasons they would be moderate with a price increase, but, I wouldn't be surprised if your point outweighs those.

 

[Ben W]

To me be able to do 300 is the sweet spot. With 70D & 90% Is under 210 but realistically 170ish

For a sec I thought you were talking about mph

 

[SMAlset]

yikes. IMO that interior would be a downgrade from the current MS

Funny I too have grown really fond of our minimal S dashboard. Feel the same away about finding all those controls a downgrade to the look. I've even changed my mind about the Model 3's even more minimal dash. Didn't think I'd like it at all, too barren, but the more I saw it and saw it in person have to say I'm more the minimalist than I ever thought I would be.

BTW regarding the battery we've both felt that the work Tesla has been doing on battery research would yield something for the Model S in probably the next year or early 2019. We ordered a Model 3 in case I need a car before then, definitely want our second car to be a Tesla, but realistically we can also see keeping our 75D for me instead of the M3, since I love it so much, and hubby buying a new MS.

 

[ggnykk]

If the tiny new roadster can hold 200 kwh battery. My expectation is that the next Model S/X battery should be 300 kwh!!!

 

[FutureShock]

If the tiny new roadster can hold 200 kwh battery. My expectation is that the next Model S/X battery should be 300 kwh!!!

And thereby become completely unaffordable.

.

 

[Chaserr]

theorized that there were TWO layers of cells under him in the Roadster.

Aren't there already 2 layers of cells under our bums in our Model S?

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%..

He did say 'max daily charge' and that looks like 85% of the original capacity so if he's charging to 100% he'd probably have enough degradation to replace the pack under warranty - my guess is that's a 90% charge with slightly above average degradation.

 

[FutureShock]

Aren't there already 2 layers of cells under our bums in our Model S?

AFAIK, for the Model S, for the most part, no. Though if I'm wrong, I hope someone comes along and corrects me.

Let's use the 85 kWh MS as an example. My understanding is that the 85 kWh MS has 16 battery modules, 14 of them arranged single-layer, and the front 2 arranged double-layer. Like so:

Now you're asking, "But what about the cells themselves? Are they double-layered within the modules?"

Well, the 18650 cells within the modules are arranged vertically, and the cells have a height of 2.6 inches. The module height itself is given as 3.1 inches. So, no room to double-layer cells within a module:

Tesla Model S Lithium Ion Battery 18650 EV Module - 22.8 Volt, 5.3 kWh, EV West - Electric Vehicle Parts, Components, EVSE Charging Stations, Electric Car Conversion Kits

Thus, most of the cells are arranged within a single-layer 'under our bums', as you colorfully put it.

Again, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. I do hate giving out bad info.


.

 

[chadever]

Tesla has either loaded these 2170's with silicone or they are switching to solid state. Solid state will have at least double the energy density, it can charge quicker, and it could be ready as soon as 2020.

High premium from 3rd party manufacturer + low production levels = Roadster and Semi until they can phase out the 2170.

I can't imagine 1,000 kwh in a semi charging to 80% in 30 minutes (100kwh in < 4 minutes) unless they have jumped to solid state technology. That or the silicone shield is effing amazing.

 

[WarpedOne]

the additional mass is not (for a sports car)

I was of same impression when I calculated the mass of R2 and came to 4400 pounds.
Then I looked at Bugatti Chiron and found it weighs the same - 4400 pounds.
Some other hypercars (Lambo, 991, ...) do weigh a bit less (-20%) but pack considerably less power.

 

[nigelsilva]

What I would love for them to have is the ability to upgrade existing to larger battery packs with a reasonable price. I don't want to keep buying a new Tesla every year or two years at the rate them changing these battery pack sizes. I spent way too much on mine as it is and want the other 60% of it to last as long as possible.

This. I'll be keeping mine for the foreseeable future, and would love the option to swap up to a 100kWh+ pack to get even more out of the car. If the interior holds up the car could last a very, very long time.

 

[Galve2000]

and I do not want to stress it further by going below 30% if possible.

I note this is your 1st post on this forum and I don't want to sound like an @$$ here but you really are babying your car far more than necessary by refusing to go below 30% SOC. in case you weren't aware there are a handful of KW "hidden" at the lower end of the battery to prevent complete bricking of same.. so while the car may "shut down" at 0 rated miles, there is actually a bit more juice in the pack, to protect the battery. no need to avoid draining below 30% regularly.

I'm not saying drive down to 0 miles regularly is good practice, but constantly leaving 60 miles in the pack for now reason is silly -- even with plentiful superchargers, lovely CA weather, and a dedicated Level 2 charger in the garage.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Judging by the prototype, the Roadster has no frunk. Assume it's filled with batteries and/or an advanced cooling system. With a Roadster range of 600+ miles with that crazy performance, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect a 500+ mile Model S/X variant.

 

[calisnow]

Judging by the prototype, the Roadster has no frunk. Assume it's filled with batteries and/or an advanced cooling system. With a Roadster range of 600+ miles with that crazy performance, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect a 500+ mile Model S/X variant.

From your mouth to God's ears I hope you're right.

 

[smilepak]

This. I'll be keeping mine for the foreseeable future, and would love the option to swap up to a 100kWh+ pack to get even more out of the car. If the interior holds up the car could last a very, very long time.

I don't intend to spend 85k every 2 years or so when Tesla decides to revamp their battery and other offerings. I wanted to keep my Tesla as long as I can, as long as all other components hold up.

I would, however, love to see they offer a battery swap upgrade program where they can take my old battery. Or, knowing the structure of it, be able to offer an upgrade kit where they can add more battery cell to an existing battery system.

I don't mind the 10k - 12k every 2-3 years as much better battery become available. Heck, as I am typing this now. My 70D at the time largest available was 85 kWh. Now on Model S is 100 kWh with a potential of seeing much higher with the recent Roaster release. That is less than 3 years!!

And yes Model S, while OLD, is a hell of a lot better than Model 3 in all aspects. Why would I want to downgrade to Model 3 for more range?

 

[bob_p]

Rather than continuing to increase the battery pack capacity - and possibly push the price for S/X even higher - to a decreasing market that could actually use the extra range on a frequent basis, another possibility is for Tesla to take advantage of the new batteries to produce the 100 battery packs at a lower price, and instead of increasing capacity, focus on price reduction (increasing profitability?) and decreasing supercharging times (down to 5-10 minutes for a typical supercharger stop).

The faster supercharging was mentioned a few months ago as a possibility. Not only would this bring highway charging stops down to close to a typical ICE stop - but it would also allow Tesla to charge more cars at each supercharger station, at least temporarily slowing the need for adding more chargers.

 

[FutureShock]

The faster supercharging was mentioned a few months ago as a possibility. Not only would this bring highway charging stops down to close to a typical ICE stop - but it would also allow Tesla to charge more cars at each supercharger station, at least temporarily slowing the need for adding more chargers.

That would be VERY attractive from Tesla's point of view. They lost a LOT of money last quarter, their high cap-ex spending is killing them.

Having to spend less on building out the supercharger network would be a godsend for them right now. Plus, the faster charging would be yet another selling point. Win-win.

Of course, this really won't affect their current EV fleet that's out there, which is sizable. Assuming the 'revised' S/X is capable of faster charge times, the help to Tesla's bottom line would be gradual (though still very welcome, I'm sure).

.

 

[calisnow]

Longer range will of course reduce demand for superchargers. Each range increase will have some measurable impact on supercharger use per car sold, all else equal. Of course all else is never equal and the rise of self driving coupled with longer range batteries will perhaps increase miles driven per car sold - negating any demand decrease effect of the longer range batteries.

 

[DocZ]

They have to bump up the battery, the S is fading and it will only get worse when the 3 hits volume production

 

[iffatall]

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.