[Unsubstantiated Rumor] Just Read That A 130 Battery Is Being Tested??!!

[FutureShock]

Bigger battery means longer charging intervals which leads to faster road trip speed.
Whereas my 90D serves me great, it is still short on range.

Curious. Could you provide an example?

Our 2013 S85 made a 2000+ km road trip this summer, and it never felt even close to being range limited.

We drive two hours, stop 30 mins, drive two hours, then 1 hour stop for food, and repeat.

Yes, but not everyone wants to drive that way. For better or worse.

Beyond the fact that supercharger coverage is still a bit spotty in some places, even when you do have an SC present at least every 120-150 miles (which seems to be what Tesla is aiming for), some ppl DON'T WANT TO stop every two hours... they want to skip superchargers when they can (and *without* slowing down to stretch range), to get to their destination faster. As they could with an ICE car.

EVs already have a significant 'get there slower' penalty built-in compared to ICEs, due to charging time vs gas station fillups. Exacerbating that by making you either stop a lot more often or having to slow down to stretch your range just makes long trips really long.

Or, put another way – if you want EVs to replace ICE cars, you kinda have to make it so that ppl can drive 'em a lot like ICE cars, i.e. there can't be a big convenience gap. You or I might be okay with the differences in the experience, but Joe Sixpack down the street is another story.

And there are a LOT of Joe Sixpacks. Or Homer Simpsons, to put it more directly.
.

 

[FutureShock]

The future is near: Samsung challenges Tesla with long range battery technology

The story seems to imply modular battery packs. To avoid carrying heavy load along with you all the time, you could leave extra packs in your garage (or a gas station/"swapping station"/equivalent) for normal commute, and pack up more range for longer trips.

@JonMc This sounds like an excellent solution! You could have the pluggable battery section for example in the trunk area and the remainder of the battery would be less flexible. For a quick "charge" you could also swap these batteries from the trunk to fully charged ones a t a "swapping station" and quickly get more range, possibly even while charing the main battery.

The pluggable part could even be a Tesla Powerwall, or a generic standardized module (swappable beteen different car brands). When you go for travel, you take your home wall battery on the road.

The article, and even Samsung's own press release, are a bit vaguely worded... it's hard to tell if the Samsung battery modules are user-swappable, or if the user simply can order an EV with whatever number of battery modules they want, i.e. custom-order whatever range you want.

I don't think there's that much point to user-swappable batteries, as much as that might excite a few ppl. The modules would be fairly heavy, and lightening up your car would really only have a major impact if you lived in the mountains or something.

But being able to order your EV with 80, 90, 100, 110, or 120 kWh in modules, depending on your budget and/or level of range anxiety, would be quite interesting/attractive. I think its more an announcement by Samsung that's aimed at automakers and their mainstream customers rather than DIY users who want to actively mess around with their cars.

But I could be wrong... would like to see a better-worded press release from Samsung.
.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

'I think we will probably stop at 100kWh battery size' -Elon Musk
The solution to that problem is more Superchargers... not a massive battery.

Right, because we all want to wait around for 45 minutes while our cars charge enough to get to the next Supercharger. NO thanks.

 

[GoTslaGo]

An older article, but suggests that a 130 kWh battery (or at least larger than 100 kWh) with 2170s is a possibility:

Panasonic to Supply Tesla With 2 Billion Lithium-Ion Battery Cells From 2014 to 2017 | Inside EVs

Note the end date...2017.

Maybe they're nearing the end of the 18650s contract and testing the newer 2170s. Just my WAG.

 

[badboy1980]

An older article, but suggests that a 130 kWh battery (or at least larger than 100 kWh) with 2170s is a possibility:

Panasonic to Supply Tesla With 2 Billion Lithium-Ion Battery Cells From 2014 to 2017 | Inside EVs

Note the end date...2017.

Maybe they're nearing the end of the 18650s contract and testing the newer 2170s. Just my WAG.

I hope you are right.

 

[shokunin]

An older article, but suggests that a 130 kWh battery (or at least larger than 100 kWh) with 2170s is a possibility:

Panasonic to Supply Tesla With 2 Billion Lithium-Ion Battery Cells From 2014 to 2017 | Inside EVs

Note the end date...2017.

Maybe they're nearing the end of the 18650s contract and testing the newer 2170s. Just my WAG.

I thought there was a newer contract lasting through 2018 or so when they announced the gigafactory partnership.

They could still use the 18650's in the current pack design for the rumored 85kw "base" pack (up from the 75kw) and put the new 2170's in a long range pack.

 

[transpondster]

There is 0 chance of user extendable batteries. You can't simply add batteries, you would need DC-DC converter also, weight price and volume simply doesn't work. The only solution would be battery trailer, but car would need to have DC connector in back.

Also that Samsung article/PR probably most likely mean NEDC range or 2020+ year availability.

 

[calisnow]

2170 cells in the 3 are taller than the 18650 cells in the S and X. That switch would require a new battery pack design, and thus a new chassis design to accommodate the increased height.

Uh - so - you can't fit a large number of 2170 cells in the current pack design? Take a shoebox - fill it with AAA batteries. Now fill it with AA batteries. You have the same exterior dimensions - just different numbers of cells in the shoebox. I'm not claiming 2170's in the existing pack would be optimal energy density (I haven't done that math on how many cells would fit in the existing pack vs 18650's - if somebody has please show me the link) but there is no reason to believe a new pack shape is needed.

 

[calisnow]

Do we really need 130kwh battery? Or would we have a 100kwh battery that cost 10k less and weights 500lb less so the car can be cheaper, faster and longer range already? I can't really imagine situations where 550km range isn't enough but 650km is.

Welps - you haven't been with me when I would like to drive from central Wisconsin to Chicago (250 miles) without stopping halfway to supercharge in Jan/Feb/Mar when the temperature is 10 below zero fahrenheit and your pack efficiency is wayyyyy down.

 

[Ulmo]

Hi all,

Just read an article saying tests are being carried out on a 130 battery. I think it's rubbish personally but I would like to read other opinions on this matter.

Also, what are your thoughts on a larger battery size? If and when do you think this will happen?

I'm thinking of trading my p90d for p100d but am trying to avoid a situation of when I get a new car, a few months later upgrades are available. That happened with my p90d. A week after reviving it, the p100d was announced with AP2 hardware. Typical!

Thanks for your responses in advance guys.

More likely someone got confused by Lucid or FF.

 

[calisnow]

Given Tesla's modular approach to changes, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they have a plan to redesign the current battery pack casing to fit them... I don't know if they can fit 130 kW that way, but I am willing to believe they have found a way to accommodate 2170's into Model S/X before any massive car redesign is needed.

Anyway, if one believes Tesla is headed for a 2170 pack in a Model S/X sooner rather than later, any speculative math on a bigger pack becomes much different compared to 18650's...

A 400 mile EPA range, new interior, HUD and a trick new magnetorheological shock suspension would be one way to put the halo back in the $100K+ price segment for Tesla while retaining the existing Model S body. It would also suck the air out of announcements by impending competitors that they will have a 300 mile range. And I would seriously consider reaching in my pockets for a trade in order to have a 400 mile EPA range - which is a 300 mile real-world range given 70-80 mph driving speeds on highways and only 200 miles in the deep of winter.

Autopilot has nowhere to go but up in terms of performance - so that's a given. Honestly the interior needs very little to keep it going upmarket. Give the door panels a "lux" feeling upgrade and do away with the plasti-chrome bezels, keep working on a more upmarket looking center console and perhaps redesign the armrests - and you have several more years of life left in the interior. The existing seats have really grown on me and look quite upmarket - especially when perforated (which I hope they bring back).

 

[calisnow]

Also, given where the Model 3 is now - it is looking pretty close to 350 mile EPA tested range when the AWD version comes out in 6 months. Model S being outgunned by Model 3 in range 6 months from now? Seems unlikely to me Tesla will let that happen.

 

[blackscraper]

Curious. Could you provide an example?

Our 2013 S85 made a 2000+ km road trip this summer, and it never felt even close to being range limited.
We drive two hours, stop 30 mins, drive two hours, then 1 hour stop for food, and repeat.

Personally, I am not too keen on driving 2 hours then having a 30min stop. That is not my pace, neither most drivers as I can observe. I can easily manage a non-stop trip of 4 hours straight, at 75mph, I doubt even 100D can make that given reasonable cabin comfort on a reasonably cold/hot day. Back to Dec 2015, 3 months after i took the delivery, we went south to Florida on a 6300KM round trip. I could barely manage 1000KM a day whereas I can do 1000 miles on an ICE car. The result? We had to leave a day earlier. I have had other trips like from Toronto to Montreal, 600KM one way. Ideally, I want an EV which can do that nonstop, whereas 90D can do that with one stop, I found it was a little bit too long.

 

[scaesare]

Uh - so - you can't fit a large number of 2170 cells in the current pack design? Take a shoebox - fill it with AAA batteries. Now fill it with AA batteries. You have the same exterior dimensions - just different numbers of cells in the shoebox. I'm not claiming 2170's in the existing pack would be optimal energy density (I haven't done that math on how many cells would fit in the existing pack vs 18650's - if somebody has please show me the link) but there is no reason to believe a new pack shape is needed.

He was not talking about the L x W dimensions of the pack, but rather about height, as the 2170 cells are 3mm taller than the 18650's.

Be that as it may, it's been noted the existing packs have ~6mm of vertical dead space in them that the 18650's don't occupy. So it's indeed conceivable that the pack exterior dimensions wouldn't have to change as @Derek Kessler surmised, but for reasons other than what you responded to.

 

[calisnow]

He was not talking about the L x W dimensions of the pack, but rather about height, as the 2170 cells are 3mm taller than the 18650's.

Be that as it may, it's been noted the existing packs have ~6mm of vertical dead space in them that the 18650's don't occupy. So it's indeed conceivable that the pack exterior dimensions wouldn't have to change as @Derek Kessler surmised, but for reasons other than what you responded to.

Dimensions are in 3D space not 2D - the reasons are exactly what I quoted and the analogy fits as well - AA batteries have a larger diameter than AAA batteries. Who was talking about length only? Not me. Any 3D space can fit some number of objects in it which have smaller dimensions in length width and height than the space. A Tesla pack frame of a given size can fit some number of 2170 cells and some greater number of 1865 cells.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Once again, please remember that batteries can be optimized for many different things. The whole point of the gigafactory and the new 2170 cells was COST REDUCTION. That’s it. Not more range, not higher density, not lower volume, not longevity, not lower weight. Now in aiming for cost reduction, maybe you do get slightly higher enegy density, but it it isn’t a given. The Model 3 battery pack isn’t necessarily “better” in any metric we care about, but it surely is better is the one metric Tesla cares about: cost.

 

[scaesare]

Dimensions are in 3D space not 2D - the reasons are exactly what I quoted and the analogy fits as well - AA batteries have a larger diameter than AAA batteries. Who was talking about length only? Not me. Any 3D space can fit some number of objects in it which have smaller dimensions in length width and height than the space. A Tesla pack frame of a given size can fit some number of 2170 cells and some greater number of 1865 cells.

Here's the post @Derek Kessler made that you directly replied to:

2170 cells in the 3 are taller than the 18650 cells in the S and X. That switch would require a new battery pack design, and thus a new chassis design to accommodate the increased height.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Do we really need 130kwh battery? Or would we have a 100kwh battery that cost 10k less and weights 500lb less so the car can be cheaper, faster and longer range already? I can't really imagine situations where 550km range isn't enough but 650km is.

I don't know... do we really need more than a 640K of memory or a 720K floppy drive? The car needs to have a real and practical range in ALL weather conditions. Currently the Model S and X do not meet this requirement in areas of extremely cold weather. Supercharging easily adds 20% more time to a long road trip.

I would like to have the option to NOT stop at every Supercharger, at least until Tesla implements a martini bar and on-site massage.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Yeah, ironically a Snowstorm is when 550 km range is not enough...

 

[calisnow]

Here's the post @Derek Kessler made that you directly replied to:

Yes I know. What's our disagreement here? What's your point? I had to work at it but I did A's in o-chem. My 3D visualization skills are serviceable. Derrick is wrong - his claim is not intelligible. Are you trolling me here? A Tesla has a pack of a certain shape. The pack consists of a casing that contains cells. You can certainly fit some 2170 cells in the existing case shape. Maybe it isn't optimal in terms of total energy capacity with the existing casing shape but maybe it is - but the claim that 2170 cells can't comprise a pack with the existing outer case shape is nonsensical.

As for max energy capacity in the existing pack shape that's simple math. Take the number of 2170 cells that can fit in the existing pack and multiple by energy capacity per cell. Do the same for 1865's. Compare. Voila.