Why a 215 mi range?

[Red Sage]

I look forward to the day when we have electric charging stations at nearly every highway exit.

I don't. I look forward to the day when the majority of Customers charge their cars at home or at work. I look forward to the day when Superchargers on long distance routes need not be more dense than 80 or 90 miles apart. I look forward to the day when a low capacity battery pack for a new electric car allows at least 350 miles of highway driving at 85 MPH while only depleting your charge from 90% to 20% -- and being able to get back to over 80% in 15 minutes or less using a Supercharger. Basically, I expect the technology to improve tremendously in the years to come, so that all fears and worries about driving fully electric are eliminated.

 

[ImEric]

So worst case scenario, we're talking about a 30% reduction in range. This means the base battery will likely have at worst a 150 mile range at 80-85 mph. Would this be sufficient to go between all super chargers? I would say this distance sucks because this means you would be stopping at most every hour and a half instead of every two hours while driving.

My goal is to have the option to drive between locations in Dallas and Austin (almost exactly 215 miles door to door, how convenient) at the proper speed when I need to hurry or if I want to stop at a different location besides the Waco supercharger. I understand that in the future as more charging locations open along the route that this would be less of an issue, so I'm mostly only concerned with the short term.

I'm sure that there will be an upgraded battery pack. Right now, i'm guessing that the base model ≡ has a 55 KWh pack, and that by the end of next year, through small incremental feats of Engineering, they might be able to drop it to as low as 50 KWh. I'm also guessing that there will be 1 to 2 additional packs (perhaps 65 KWh and 80 KWh) and that with the top battery pack, your drive will be effortless in anything above 25 degree weather or a REALLY strong head wind. So if your goal is a 200+ mile trip without a stop, just start saving the extra $12k or so right now to get the car that you actually want).

 

[ImEric]

That will also be for a D version since more efficient, a RWD will have a little less.

If you are in a COLD climate during really cold months you'll likely see another 70% cut on that, netting you a final total ~121 REAL miles or so in those colder months.

Just always keep those reductions in mind...

-T

1) Elon Musk said two things about the ≡:
- The base model will be single motor RWD
- The Cheapest base model will get at least 215 miles of range (200 real world) miles.

2) Thanks for the tip on cold weather. I knew it was less, but I didn't know it was 75%! It's always nice to hear from people with real world experience. That's a LOT of range loss... Reason #822 to live in Southern California.

 

[techmaven]

And just remember, they always quote max 100% miles, something all users have to realize is not the norm and not feasible really since it takes so long to charge to 100% at times. So 215 (or more) being 100%, you'll really only charge to 90% typically, netting about 193 miles being typical. That will also be for a D version since more efficient, a RWD will have a little less.

REAL world driving will likely net about 5% - 10% lower than that, so more like 175 REAL world miles (maybe more). If you are in a COLD climate during really cold months you'll likely see another 70% cut on that, netting you a final total ~121 REAL miles or so in those colder months.

Just always keep those reductions in mind...

-T

Wait, that's not true. 70%??

You can hit 70% if you are not traveling long distances... short trips that never really get the car heated up. But 70% making Supercharger jumps is not right.

Edit: Oh... ok, 70% of 5-10%... ?

 

[techmaven]

80 mph is only for a few seconds but 60-65 is sustained

Note that the 60-65 mph sustained is actually a very short period of time. The high speed test really simulates a highway commute, where there is still traffic. See how bumpy it is between 60 and 80 mph. Every change in speed decreases efficiency. The entire high speed section is only 5.5 minutes, or about a 6 mile highway commute in light to medium traffic. The high speed test spends almost 45% of the time doing non-highway speeds with significant acceleration and deceleration - it models a commute from a nearby suburb into a city.

 

[nexsuperne101]

The batteries are rated for 100% at 20 Celsius. Every 2C below this reduces the effective battery capacity by 1%, so by the time you get to 0C (32f), the capacity is reduced by 90%. On a 215 mile car, this will reduce to about 190 miles at freezing point. On top of this, the heater will be in use, probably the wipers and demister as well. Even if you went worst case, it won't be any lower than 160 miles range at -15C (which is extremely cold in the UK). I know from the experience of the last winter that my Leaf went from 85 miles in summer (with Aircon on, otherwise would have been 90 miles), down to a very tight 70 miles (with the heating on). This was an 82% reduction over summer.

The same factors applied to a Tesla, which isn't as inefficient, this would drop 215 miles (summer) down to 176 miles (heavy winter).

 

[Topher]

Wait, that's not true. 70%??

You can hit 70% if you are not traveling long distances... short trips that never really get the car heated up. But 70% making Supercharger jumps is not right.

Edit: Oh... ok, 70% of 5-10%... ?

Perhaps we could avoid some confusion if we kept estimates to power consumption. I have no idea what the heater will draw in the model ≡, but we can estimate from the Model S. We can't however take the percentage loss of range from the Model S and apply it to the Model ≡.

Additionally, heat losses from a heated car depend on the outside temperature (U * A * ΔT). The losses at -10°F are twice those at 30°F.

Thank you kindly.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

there is a story about 12 things to know about a Tesla - and they say...
We believe Supercharger access will be an extra cost option on the Model 3. This allows those who don’t need long-distance-travel capability to save a bit of money while those who will use their Tesla for long-distance travel can invest a bit more, in order to fund expansion and maintenance of the Supercharger network. We also believe it’s likely that Tesla will roll Supercharger access into the higher-capacity battery option on the Model 3, just as they did with the Model S. In other words, if you spend an extra $5,000 to $10,000 to get a larger battery with much greater range, you probably won’t have to pay extra to get Supercharger access.

So I am trying to absorb this....IF there is a Supercharger access charge....could one choose to NOT buy this until until I wanted a road trip? Then buy into SC series at some lifetime price like $2,000? (or just let me have access for my month long venture?) And offset this choice with the price of a bakery from 60 KWH to 90 kWh at a price of $6,000?

Any wild guesses as to how much SC access might be? duration? Battery increment sizes? Prices?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

So I am trying to absorb this....IF there is a Supercharger access charge....could one choose to NOT buy this until until I wanted a road trip? Then buy into SC series at some lifetime price like $2,000? (or just let me have access for my month long venture?) And offset this choice with the price of a bakery from 60 KWH to 90 kWh at a price of $6,000?

For the Model S60, the Supercharger price was $2,000 at time of purchase or $2,500 if enabled later. I would expect Model 3 pricing to be the same.

 

[Alketi]

So I am trying to absorb this....IF there is a Supercharger access charge....could one choose to NOT buy this until until I wanted a road trip? Then buy into SC series at some lifetime price like $2,000? (or just let me have access for my month long venture?) And offset this choice with the price of a bakery from 60 KWH to 90 kWh at a price of $6,000?

Any wild guesses as to how much SC access might be? duration? Battery increment sizes? Prices?

Not sure how Tesla would alter their Supercharger access. It could be a one time fee, it could be a fee for a duration, it could be per use, it could be "free".

A more interesting question is whether or not Tesla would be allowed (state-by-state) to charge per-use access to a Supercharger. I'm wondering if "reselling" electricity is perhaps forbidden in certain locations. Does anyone know these details?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Not sure how Tesla would alter their Supercharger access. It could be a one time fee, it could be a fee for a duration, it could be per use, it could be "free".

A more interesting question is whether or not Tesla would be allowed (state-by-state) to charge per-use access to a Supercharger. I'm wondering if "reselling" electricity is perhaps forbidden in certain locations. Does anyone know these details?

Some states ban it.
Some states have made exceptions for chargers.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Not sure how Tesla would alter their Supercharger access. It could be a one time fee, it could be a fee for a duration, it could be per use, it could be "free".

A more interesting question is whether or not Tesla would be allowed (state-by-state) to charge per-use access to a Supercharger. I'm wondering if "reselling" electricity is perhaps forbidden in certain locations. Does anyone know these details?

Some states ban it.
Some states have made exceptions for chargers.

In states that do not allow billing by "kWh" (aka reselling electricity while not being a utility company), charge networks simply charge either a flat rate or per minute fees. The billing implementation is a non-issue if Tesla pursues it.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Perhaps one could "join the members-only" club for a fee, and then later resign ones membership.
I used to belong to the Petroleum Club, where one could order a drink in dry counties. There seems to be a workaround for "selling" kWh.
But - the question was - what is the breakeven between buying a bigger battery for more range, and getting access to SC as a way to extend your range. Do you decide on ordering the car, and then change your mind and subscribe to SC network when the need arises? and when the need does not continue - can one resign the membership?

 

[Booga]

Perhaps one could "join the members-only" club for a fee, and then later resign ones membership.
I used to belong to the Petroleum Club, where one could order a drink in dry counties. There seems to be a workaround for "selling" kWh.
But - the question was - what is the breakeven between buying a bigger battery for more range, and getting access to SC as a way to extend your range. Do you decide on ordering the car, and then change your mind and subscribe to SC network when the need arises? and when the need does not continue - can one resign the membership?

I don't think they would do this to your average user - they'll just provide a shorter duration membership, or a "single visit fee" like an airport lounge or gym.

I'm not sure if many reservations are from people who intend on keeping a second car, but at least for me, I want to replace my only ICE with this car, and that means I will need supercharging capability. In addition, especially with autopilot, even if I have an ICE, there's no way I'd take the ICE on a long drive. That's where autopilot will shine and where I intend on using it.

I wonder if they might bundle AP and supercharging access together. AP is $2,500 today and if your Model S isn't SC enabled, it's another $2,500 for that. Maybe they'll say, "Let's call it $3k and you'll get both" for the Model 3. The primary assumption here is not that energy usage will be significantly lower for the Model 3, but rather that the cost of autopilot development on a per car basis drops significantly when you put another 500,000 vehicles on the road. Of that $3k, $2,500 goes towards SC infrastructure and your expected electricity usage. The other $500 is earmarked for AP development.

Just a thought.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

I don't think they would do this to your average user - they'll just provide a shorter duration membership, or a "single visit fee" like an airport lounge or gym.

I'm not sure if many reservations are from people who intend on keeping a second car, but at least for me, I want to replace my only ICE with this car, and that means I will need supercharging capability. In addition, especially with autopilot, even if I have an ICE, there's no way I'd take the ICE on a long drive. That's where autopilot will shine and where I intend on using it.

I wonder if they might bundle AP and supercharging access together. AP is $2,500 today and if your Model S isn't SC enabled, it's another $2,500 for that. Maybe they'll say, "Let's call it $3k and you'll get both" for the Model 3. The primary assumption here is not that energy usage will be significantly lower for the Model 3, but rather that the cost of autopilot development on a per car basis drops significantly when you put another 500,000 vehicles on the road. Of that $3k, $2,500 goes towards SC infrastructure and your expected electricity usage. The other $500 is earmarked for AP development.

Just a thought.

I like your thought - not sure it is the official plan, but one that I could endorse. Single use Supercharger fee (or a vacation membership). Use it when needed, but if you are not a road warrior, then leave it alone. I assume the car needs no additional hardware, just permission to use the SC system (and pay dues into the system).
As to AP - the more I read, the more I want this system. If it helps me avoid even one simple rear-end accident, it pays for the $2500 fee many times over. As I get older, blinder, more easily distracted...AP may save my bacon several times a day. Even an entry level AP seems valuable - and a full fledged, constantly improving system - "don't leave home without it".

But the question remains - breakeven between bigger battery and SC membership? Cost is one factor, but range anxiety enters.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Some states ban it.
Some states have made exceptions for chargers.

There has been some talk about letting other car companies have access to the SC network. There must be some cost- some sharing of the infrastructure investment and the fill-up fee. If Tesla is willing to structure some billing for BMW users, why not for M3 users? Perhaps thats the $2000 (lifetime) initiation fee.

 

[Jersey Shore Tom]

there is a story about 12 things to know about a Tesla - and they say...
We believe Supercharger access will be an extra cost option on the Model 3. This allows those who don’t need long-distance-travel capability to save a bit of money while those who will use their Tesla for long-distance travel can invest a bit more, in order to fund expansion and maintenance of the Supercharger network. We also believe it’s likely that Tesla will roll Supercharger access into the higher-capacity battery option on the Model 3, just as they did with the Model S. In other words, if you spend an extra $5,000 to $10,000 to get a larger battery with much greater range, you probably won’t have to pay extra to get Supercharger access.

So I am trying to absorb this....IF there is a Supercharger access charge....could one choose to NOT buy this until until I wanted a road trip? Then buy into SC series at some lifetime price like $2,000? (or just let me have access for my month long venture?) And offset this choice with the price of a bakery from 60 KWH to 90 kWh at a price of $6,000?

I do not expect Tesla to charge for Supercharger access.
There are four major costs for Supercharger access.

1. Cost to build out the network. Tesla has to pay this upfront.
2. Cost for the onboard hardware. It was announced at the reveal that Tesla will pay this upfront and include the hardware in every Model 3.
3. Operations & Maintenance costs except electricity and other variable costs. Tesla has to pay this as long as they operate the network.
4. Electricity and other variable costs. Tesla can avoid this for Model 3's without Supercharger access.

Tesla is already committed to the majority of the cost, why would they risk the goodwill and competitive advantage they have by absorbing the rest? Remember, no one has been able to sustain a pay per charge model.

 

[Mkorpal]

I do not expect Tesla to charge for Supercharger access.
There are four major costs for Supercharger access.

1. Cost to build out the network. Tesla has to pay this upfront.
2. Cost for the onboard hardware. It was announced at the reveal that Tesla will pay this upfront and include the hardware in every Model 3.
3. Operations & Maintenance costs except electricity and other variable costs. Tesla has to pay this as long as they operate the network.
4. Electricity and other variable costs. Tesla can avoid this for Model 3's without Supercharger access.

Tesla is already committed to the majority of the cost, why would they risk the goodwill and competitive advantage they have by absorbing the rest? Remember, no one has been able to sustain a pay per charge model.

I agree for the most part with the exception of the bolded. Tesla has a history of paying upfront for bigger batteries and autopilot and expecting you to pay up to activate it. It's not a stretch to imagine they will install the hardware and expect you to pay for it in this case as well.

 

[geoffreak]

Can we please stop turning every thread into a discussion about how Tesla should charge for Superchargers? This has so little to do with the 215 mile range, much less the size of the car, side view comparisons, or any other threads in this sub-forum. If you see the discussion derailing in other threads it's much better to redirect that person to one of the hundreds of other threads about it than to respond to it. Thanks!

I'd recommend everyone continue this discussion here: Free supercharger or pay per use?

I'm sure that there will be an upgraded battery pack. Right now, i'm guessing that the base model ≡ has a 55 KWh pack, and that by the end of next year, through small incremental feats of Engineering, they might be able to drop it to as low as 50 KWh. I'm also guessing that there will be 1 to 2 additional packs (perhaps 65 KWh and 80 KWh) and that with the top battery pack, your drive will be effortless in anything above 25 degree weather or a REALLY strong head wind. So if your goal is a 200+ mile trip without a stop, just start saving the extra $12k or so right now to get the car that you actually want).

Yeah, it's more of a pipe dream than an actual requirement or a realistic need. However, as I said earlier, the upgraded battery is still unlikely to surpass the 215 miles mark that I want. Even if we assume the best case scenario with the upgraded battery being 50% larger than the base (50kWh -> 75kWh), that's still barely at the ideal range and completely ignores the cost of the added weight. I really can't see them offering more than two battery options as this would be very different from what they've done historically.

Fortunately in Texas I don't really need to worry about the temperature aspect. I think we only had a handful of nights below freezing this past winter (it was abnormally warm) and we usually only drop below freezing for about 7-10 days a year. Most days in summer are quite hot with a nicer summer day in around 85-95˚F (~30-35˚ C) and many days well over that at 95-105+˚F (~35-40+˚C).

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Can we please stop turning every thread into a discussion about how Tesla should charge for Superchargers? This has so little to do with the 215 mile range, much less the size of the car, side view comparisons, or any other threads in this sub-forum. If you see the discussion derailing in other threads it's much better to redirect that person to one of the hundreds of other threads about it than to respond to it. Thanks!

I'd recommend everyone continue this discussion here: Free supercharger or pay per use?



Yeah, it's more of a pipe dream than an actual requirement or a realistic need. However, as I said earlier, the upgraded battery is still unlikely to surpass the 215 miles mark that I want. Even if we assume the best case scenario with the upgraded battery being 50% larger than the base (50kWh -> 75kWh), that's still barely at the ideal range and completely ignores the cost of the added weight. I really can't see them offering more than two battery options as this would be very different from what they've done historically.

Fortunately in Texas I don't really need to worry about the temperature aspect. I think we only had a handful of nights below freezing this past winter (it was abnormally warm) and we usually only drop below freezing for about 7-10 days a year. Most days in summer are quite hot with a nicer summer day in around 85-95˚F (~30-35˚ C) and many days well over that at 95-105+˚F (~35-40+˚C).

In my world, a car has to live local but travel anywhere. A desert car needs to take me skiing. And, for resale,equipment matters in the asking price.
Now - I brought in a comparison made by others - bigger battery vs supercharger access...which is a better purchase ? So, not really a SC pay-per-use question. It was a question of paying for SC -or- paying for bigger battery. This direct question has slipped sideways a bit.