What do you think the 100D's Range Will Be?

[P85DBeast]

Wanted to hear you guys opinion!

 

[bob_p]

If the range is completely proportional to battery size, the 100D would get around 326. Though there might be some loss because of the increased weight.

Though the range difference between the P90D and P100D was greater, which could mean a range around 340.

 

[SDRick]

I predict 340 miles versus 315 for the P100D.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

I predict 340 miles versus 315 for the P100D.

Agreed, 94kWh/81kWh *294miles is 341 miles, lose one mile for the extra mass and you're at 340 miles.

 

[R.S]

Agreed, 94kWh/81kWh *294miles is 341 miles, lose one mile for the extra mass and you're at 340 miles.

Why 94kWh and 81kWh, just curious.

 

[sandpiper]

I predict 340 miles versus 315 for the P100D.

Going by the EPA numbers and ratios 315 / 270 * 294 = 343.

That's only valid if the there's no other significant change from the P90D to the P100D that would increase range, other than battery. For example, maybe they did something with the P100D larger rear motor to make it a bit more efficient in "torque sleep" mode? If so, then you would see a different ratio with the 100D/90D than with the P100D/P90D.

 

[HyperMiler]

400? To make a statement?

 

[Troy]

Anything between 343-354 miles EPA rated range wouldn't surprise me. This is what we know:

Model S 90D = 294 mi EPA rated range

Model S P90D = 270 mi EPA rated range
Model S P100D = 315 mi EPA rated range
The increase is 315/270-1= 16.7%.

Model S P90D = 509 km NEDC rated range
Model S P100D = 613 km NEDC rated range
The increase is 613/509-1= 20.4%.

Model S 100D EPA-rated range should be expected to be between 343 and 354 miles. 343 is based on 16.7% increase from P90D to P100D EPA rated range and 354 is based on 20.4% increase from P90D to P100D NEDC rated range.

 

[sandpiper]

400? To make a statement?

The statement would have to be "we have pulled this number out of our arses".

 

[LargeHamCollider]

Why 94kWh and 81kWh, just curious.

The usable capacity of the 90 and 100 packs in favorable conditions.

Another way to do it would be 8,256/7,104* 294miles, 7,104 is the number of cells in the 90 pack, 8,256 is the estimated number of cells in the 100 pack.

 

[R.S]

The usable capacity of the 90 and 100 packs in favorable conditions.

Another way to do it would be 8,256/7,104* 294miles, 7,104 is the number of cells in the 90 pack, 8,256 is the estimated number of cells in the 100 pack.

Ah ok, who found that out? But using an estimated number of cells to prove another estimation is kind of going an argumentative full circle. In other words not how you should do it. But if 94 and 81 are the real usable kWh of both packs, 16% increase would make sense. Unless they are estimations as well.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

Ah ok, who found that out? But using an estimated number of cells to prove another estimation is kind of going an argumentative full circle. In other words not how you should do it. But if 94 and 81 are the real usable kWh of both packs, 16% increase would make sense. Unless they are estimations as well.

The estimate of cell number does include additional information, such as the likelyhood that the pack maintained a 96s configuration. So the estimates are not entirely co-dependent.

 

[R.S]

The estimate of cell number does include additional information, such as the likelyhood that the pack maintained a 96s configuration. So the estimates are not entirely co-dependent.

That is only very little added information, since with your estimation it is 86 parallel, but it could also be ±2 and would still make sense. The usable kWh is much more reliable to predict 100Ds range. Better than estimated cells, or P100D range, since they could also have tested the P90D with 21" staggered wheels and the P100D with the more efficient 19" base wheels.