Mar 7, 2011
Zorba Reservation holders just got a mail with some details:
- Deliveries for North America begin in mid-2012.
- The first 1000 cars off the line will be the North American Model S Signature Series. Those vehicles will be equipped with a 300 mile range battery. In the tradition of a limited-edition series, they will feature unique badging and an extensive complement of options.
- After the Model S Signature Series, deliveries for North America will continue with the 300 mile batteries, followed by 230 and 160 options later in 2012.
- Delivery of the European left-hand drive Model S is scheduled to begin in late 2012. In mid-2013 we plan to begin delivering the right-hand drive Model S for Europe and Asia. Each launch will begin with a limited edition Signature Series.
- We expect to produce approximately 5,000 units in 2012 as we ramp to full single shift production capacity of 20,000 units per year in 2013.
- The price of the US base Model S with a 160-mile battery is $49,900 after the $7,500 federal tax credit. The 230-mile range option is expected to price at about $10,000 more and the 300-mile option at about $20,000 more than the base.
- We are currently working on final pricing and options for Model S, including the Signature Series. We expect to have updates on Model S pricing worldwide this summer.
Quite a surprise they will start with 300 mile deliveries first. As European I hope prices and estimated amount of deliveries expected in 2012 will be released soon
�
Mar 7, 2011
dpeilow Interesting, the order of battery deliveries is backwards to what had been expected.�
Mar 7, 2011
Kevin Sharpe true... but it really throws down the gauntlet to the competition!�
Mar 7, 2011
mpt George Blankenship blogs the details: A Quick Update on Model S | Blog | Tesla Motors
Further updates expected in the summer.�
Mar 7, 2011
Adm I suspect this is to deliver the cars with the highest profit margin first...
An extra � 14000 extra for the 300mi option: Well more than a year and a half to delivery...�
Mar 7, 2011
widodh The 300-Mile battery is what I've expected, but still a LOT of money
But I really do hope to see my Model S on my driveway at the end of 2012, but I have the feeling that it will be in 2013..�
Mar 7, 2011
kgb I believe this represents a good business plan. Emphasize the positives. What does Tesla have that no other car company has? They have BEV's with the longest range. Although Tesla's financials are better than what they were, there is still some potential doubt regarding their viability. So they are selling what no one else has, and making the customer pay a premium for it... what's the customer gonna do? buy a leaf? Like Apple, Inc, Tesla knows they have what the customer wants and can't get elsewhere, so they are getting good profit margins, for now. On the other hand, if they sold a BEV with 160 mile range, that is only slightly more than a leaf, they'd have a harder time justifying the additional $$$.
This policy is following Tesla's game plan. Starting with the most expensive cars, then working their way down to the less expensive cars with the tighter margins. 1st the Roadster, then the high end Model S, then the low end Model S, then Model X or Bluestar.
I am excited that they are still on schedule, and I was probably going to get the 300 mi pack anyhow, but now that the base for the car I want is $70k, I will need to see how the options price out.�
Mar 7, 2011
mpt Bang on! When people think Model S they'll be thinking 300-mile EV, with great styling and up to 7-seats. Anyone still need an SUV?�
Mar 7, 2011
ckessel Both great news and disappointing news. I wanted to upgrade to the signature series, but a $20k bump on battery price is more than I was hoping to handle. It means the bare bones car is 77,500 for the 300 mile range, so with other options, probably closer to $85-90,000. That's 10-15,000 out of my range.�
Mar 7, 2011
ibcs This is geat news starting with the 300 mile battery. I will wait to hold judgment to see the pricing on options. Hopefully, the Signature Series will have a lot of bang for the buck. I do expect it to be close to $80K.�
Mar 7, 2011
Sparrow I am certainly glad the 300 mile pack will be available right from the start, it will be the envy of all other EV buyers.�
Mar 7, 2011
Kipernicus I was planning on the 160, and hopefully "later in 2012" doesn't get pushed out.
I think I'll also have to wait and see about the idea of renting a 300-mile pack for the occasional long trip. My daily commute is about 12 miles round trip and 160 mile range would cover the occasional trip to Sacramento. If I needed to go to Tahoe or LA, which is only at most 4 times a year, I would like to rent the 300 mile pack. Even if that rental costs $200-300, it would make more sense than $20k upfront for the big pack. As much as it pains me, I will have waited 2 1/2 years by mid 2012, and a few more months wait for the 160 pack is comparatively short.�
Mar 7, 2011
Norbert Also available here: A Quick Update on Model S | Blog | Tesla Motors
(With a bit of introduction and a link to the Model S FAQ.)
To start with the 300 mile pack, goes along with Tesla's general approach of bringing a new technology to market by starting at the high end, although in this case it is a surprise from a technical point of view. This will also allow making a stronger point about the potential of EVs for the future. It does appear that the general expectation is that over the years, battery prices will be coming down...�
Mar 7, 2011
tomsax Nice! A very smart move. Why deny people who want to spend the most money the opportunity to do so starting with the very first cars?�
Mar 7, 2011
vfx Right. Most of the public screams and cries for longer range versions. it's only the minority experienced EV owners that ask for less miles.�
Mar 7, 2011
Arnold Panz Amazing! I had held off on reserving the S because I had no idea what was going into it, and based on what we had heard it sounded like there was no chance it would be the 300 mile battery pack -- at best I thought it might be an upgrade. Despite my low P number (96), I'll probably end up reserving an S now because I really wanted the 300 mile pack anyway, and definitely want to get the car as soon as possible. My Lexus RX 400h has almost 90k miles on it!�
Mar 7, 2011
Jaff Agreed Tom...Survival of the fattest (wallets) :wink::smile:
�
Mar 7, 2011
Jaff Michael, add in no need for AWD with the Model S "TC / gearbox" having the Roadster's "winter performance pedigree"...probably a good chunk of the SUV and Mini-Van markets will be heading South...
�
Mar 7, 2011
Dave5609 Delivery Order
I'm confused. I thought the cars were going to be delivered by reservation number..now it sounds like they'll be delivered by battery size? What does it mean if I have #P 1000 with a 160 mile pack and someone has #P 2000 with a 300 mile pack...will they get their car first? Doesn't seem fair to the people that "invested" early.�
Mar 7, 2011
ibcs It's only the first 1000 Signature Series that will be made with identical features. After that they will allow customization of features. Your P number should be unaffected.�
Mar 7, 2011
drbradfo Quote : "After the Model S Signature Series, deliveries for North America will continue with the 300 mile batteries, followed by 230 and 160 options later in 2012."
This implies reservation holders will be able to choose battery size and then will be resorted in priority from there. Not good, IMHO. There is already a option to move up the list, and that's the Sig Series. I should be the 2863rd non-Sig USA delivery regardless of options or configurations.�
Mar 7, 2011
Dave5609 That's the way I read it and completely agree. I send customer service an email to clarify and will post their reply.�
Mar 7, 2011
AnOutsider I read it the same. Not sure how I feel about it, but I like that they're not only going to have the 300mi available at launch, but will be pushing it. I think I may upgrade to the signature car now. Other than the engraved plate, does anyone remember what the signature roadsters have? I'll have to look that up.
*edit*
From Tesla Roadster 'Signature One Hundred' Series Sells Out | Press Releases | Tesla Motors
What was custom about the plaque? I thought all the plaques were the same, just reproduced and placed in the back of the vehicles.�
Mar 7, 2011
ckessel It may be they only have the 300 manufacturing line up initially and while it's cranking, they'll be building the 240 line. No idea, but I could see valid reasons why they might be staggering the battery types.�
Mar 7, 2011
Kevin Sharpe Tesla Sets Price, Production Plans for Model S | TheDetroitBureau.com
Includes remarks about charge times once again;
"Tesla still hasn�t released official technical details, such as performance numbers or charging times. The latter will depend upon what charging system customers opt for. Using a special Level III 440-volt system, which electric vehicle proponents ultimate hope to see in widespread commercial use, a drained 300-mile battery could be recharged in barely an hour. But with a more conventional, 220-volt home-charger, the times might stretch to 15-hours or more.
Tesla will offer a super-fast, 220-volt 75-amp home charger that could trim the time to around 5 hours, but that could require extensive rewiring, as it uses more current than the typical American home.
For the 160-mile battery, home charging times with a 220-volt system will likely range between 3 to 8 hours, depending on the charger used."�
Mar 7, 2011
AnOutsider I guess I'm also surprised that it will be available in general. I'd always assumed, that like AWD, it was something that was going to take them more time and thus the reason for it not being available at launch.�
Mar 7, 2011
Doug_G This is quite exciting. With the 300 mile pack available right away, I'll definitely be going that route. Given my usage, I figure it will completely eliminate my need for an ICE car. And that's despite a road trip I take each year that goes through upstate New York, where AFAIK there are no opportunities for charging.�
Mar 7, 2011
ckessel I'm weighing how much I want 300 miles now. It's rare I'd need it, 240 would almost always be enough for me even accounting for battery deterioration after a few years. An extra $10,000 is a hell of a lot of money for the rare times I'd need to make a longer trip. I could practically buy a cheap Hyundai for those times...
At $5k, I'd definitely get the range extension. At $10k, I don't really want it. The only reason I'm really considering it is because the 300's get early delivery preference.�
Mar 7, 2011
AnOutsider Ditto my friend (and to have a SIG series!)�
Mar 7, 2011
Lloyd I will still need more information before I can decide on a battery. The 300 mile battery is newer chemistry and better power density. I am left with more questions.....
1.What is the weight difference?
2.Will there be a longevity difference?
3. Charge time?
4. Fast Charge time?
5. How will fast charging affect each of the different chemistries' longevity?
6. What will the performance be for each of the battery scenerios?�
Mar 7, 2011
Jkam I wonder if some of the P reservations that wanted the 300 mile range will step up and get a Signature Reservation. I understand pricing is not final, but a P reservation wanting 300 mile range is going to pay $70k and a Signature model (300 mile range included) is $80k. For the extra features that have yet to be determined for the Signature Series, it may be worth the $10k difference not to mention getting the car earlier.�
Mar 7, 2011
AndrewBissell European Signature 250 Edition Roadsters were quite a bargain if you wanted all the features they offered (including a CF hardtop, two-tone executive leather, ... I can't recall the rest!). IIRC it was order of 10K less than the separate upgrades.�
Mar 7, 2011
ckessel Where did you get that number? If the Sig is really $80k with a 300 battery, then yea, I'll step up for that.�
Mar 7, 2011
doug See here. The series number and, if wanted, the buyer's name were engraved on the plaque.�
Mar 7, 2011
stopcrazypp The Panasonic NCR18650A batteries in the 300 mile Model S have been in production for a year already. By the time the car is out it'll be more than two years, so there should be enough time for Tesla to evaluate the batteries and for Panasonic to work out any issues.
1)
I've done a weight calculation before, and it is ~800lbs for 8000 NCR18650A cells in the 300 mile Model S. Assuming the 160 mile Model S uses 6000 Roadster cells that's ~580lbs, which works out to a cell weight increase of 220lbs. The 230 mile version will have the same weight increase if the rumor is true that it uses the same amount of cells as the 300 mile version.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/4004-Much-awaited-news-for-the-model-S-not-much-but-still...-%28atleast-it-s-still-a-news%29?highlight=ncr18650a
It seems like our price estimates are pretty accurate too (~$20k for 300 miles over the 160 mile):
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/4549-What-will-be-the-price-difference-on-the-batteries-be?highlight=ncr18650a
2&5) Don't think anyone knows how it translates to real life (I imagine it's not that different from existing chemistries), but the battery charts are available here:
http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-cgi/jvcr13pz.cgi?E+BA+4+ACA4001+NCR18650A+7+WW
3&4) Charge time will largely depend on the charging equipment, but assuming the same equipment, the charge time increase will be exactly proportional to the capacity increase (which you can roughly estimate using the range increase).
5) As for fast charger effect on life, if you want to charge in the same amount of time (for example 45 minutes), then the effect should be the same regardless of capacity. If you charge using the same amount of power (for example 50kW using the Leaf DC charger), which is basically charging a constant "mile per hour", the large capacity battery will be less affected, but will obviously take longer to charge full (since it has more capacity).
6) A larger battery has more available power at the same discharge rate. That means given the motor is sized properly to handle it, the 230 mile & 300 mile Model S will have proportionally more power available than the 160 mile version.�
Mar 7, 2011
AnOutsider Wonder if that be countered by the larger weight thus creating a wash scenario?�
Mar 7, 2011
howabout2 This is fascinating. To date, I had been planning to get two 160-mile cars because neither my wife nor I need anything more than a 160-mile range. I had not yet considered that the performance of the car may be affected by the battery pack size.
I'm fine with the later delivery of the 160-mile cars, but would be disappointed if the performance wasn't the same.
Another thing that I'm not entirely clear on is whether or not the same option levels will be available to cars of every battery-pack tier. There doesn't seem to be any technical reason to limit the options available to a 160-mile car, but you never know what sort of trickery they may pull to lure people into larger battery packs for additional profit.�
Mar 7, 2011
Doug_G Totally unnecessary. Please tend to talk themselves up.
Adding lower versions of products tends to increase the sales of the higher versions. I know this sounds paradoxical but this has been my experience.�
Mar 7, 2011
ckessel Absolutely. They'll go in, look at the 230 mile and think to themselves. Well, I do drive from A to B twice a year and the 230 (or 300) would cover that. When, really, they could probably rent a limo with a personal driver for each of those trips for 10 years and come out ahead.�
Mar 7, 2011
Norbert Yes, and it's an indication that the upgrades are priced reasonably, while showing once more that the battery price is a substantial part of an EV's price. Do you have an estimate for how $/kWh will evolve past 2012, not considering larger breakthroughs?
It seems on this forum there will be a healthy distribution of demand for the various sizes, while a reduction of the price (in maybe 3-10 years after introduction, depending on any breakthroughs resulting from current research) to $5000 for each upgrade, would substantially shift interest towards the 300 mile pack. (While also moving the base price down significantly.)
Overall, to me, it seems a large piece of the puzzle was added in an assuring way, plus the small surprise that providing a 300 mile option is already feasible at time of introduction (as this was in question until now).�
Mar 7, 2011
vfx Prices come with regional country and (in the US) some state discounts as well as a Roadster owner discount.�
Mar 7, 2011
dsm363 Remember this is 300 'ideal' miles and in range mode (I think I have this right). standard mode or around 80% of that already gets you down to a 240 and knock off another few percentage points for real world driving gets you closer to 200 miles. If that covers your longest trip, the 300 mile pack might still be the way to go.�
Mar 7, 2011
dsm363 This guy is getting really annoying. Does anyone know if his 'most American homes can't handle this' comment is correct?�
Mar 7, 2011
Norbert ... and it seems to result in an (end-user) price of about $550 - $600 per kWh (although it might be a coincidence that both upgrades are 70 miles).�
Mar 7, 2011
Todd Burch Don't think so. My home has 200 amp service and, around here, that's normal. Most homes have 100 amps minimum, 150-200 is more common I think.�
Mar 7, 2011
vfx Any average or less than average price home in a region that is over 25 years old will probably be only 100 amps.�
Mar 7, 2011
Jaff Bang on Doug!...We're eliminating one ICE vehicle shortly (courtesy of the Roadster)...we'll sunset the other ICE vehicle when the Model S arrives (now that the 300 mile pack will be available from the get go).
�
Mar 7, 2011
Jaff Agree dsm...if you're driving an EV currently, you know about range reducing events (cold weather, dispatching riff-raff, etc. :wink::biggrin
To me, more range means more "fun" miles per trip, and more, longer range "fun" trips ! :biggrin:
�
Mar 7, 2011
kgb @dsm, your math is right. One other factor to consider is whether you want to charge when you get there. If you need to do a round trip, that cuts the range in half. Suddenly, you can only go 100 miles for a day trip, unless you want to charge when you get there. @dsm knows what it is like here in Texas, they don't like our kind 'round here (EV lovers). There is no place to charge (except home and RV parks). You'd be surprised how quickly you can burn through range. My wife wanted to visit her folks. "Why don't you bring the electric car and show it off to my cousins." Her mom's was 103 miles, and I have 240 miles on a full charge. I was trying to keep up with my wife zipping along at 80 mph (we were late). Suffice it to say, there was no showing off of the car. Had to trickle charge at 110V because I went well beyond half way on the battery. Speed (wind resistance) eats up battery fast. 240 ideal miles was not enough, a 300 miles battery would have got me there and back.
Also, if I had a 300 ideal mile battery (200 real miles), that would mean I could drive to Lake Charles, Austin, and San Antonio without stopping (but I'd have to charge over night if available). I could drive to Dallas, but I'd probably have to drive 50-60 mph. That said, how often do I make a drive to a nearby city... probably once per year (maybe twice). I could rent a car for much less than the cost of a battery, but then I don't get to show off my awesome BEV. Also I'll need to see if the 300 mile battery give better performance.
I priced a full-size car rental. It's about $55/day + gas + unlimited miles at Enterprise. $10,000 for 300 mile battery instead of the 230 mile battery means I could rent a full-sized car for 180 days. It also means I could get more option upgrades. Of course, with the $20,000 you'd save with a 160 mile battery, you could rent a full-sized car for everyday for a year. I've got a lot to think about. I guess I'll have to see what the options price out to be.�
Mar 7, 2011
stopcrazypp Like AnOutsider says, the available power increase will be somewhat offset by the weight increase (although given proportional power increase, the extra power will more than make up for it).
However, if Tesla uses the same PEM/motor sized for the 160 mile version, on all the Model S, then there will be a bottleneck at the PEM/motor and all Model S will essentially perform the same (with the exception of the extra weight). It does present an interesting position, will Tesla bundle a performance upgrade with the extra range, or will it be separate? Given previous history with the Roadster though, it will more likely be a separate "Sport" version with upgraded motor and/or PEM.�
Mar 7, 2011
Cobos I thought the latest rumour was that all three packs would use the same amount of cells. That more or less levels out any weight differences between the 3 sizes and insures that they can use the same handling characteristics for all three versions. No need to adjust anything either for the few times you rent a heavier battery. This also improves the margin on the 160miles model since you can use 3 generations old cells that should be dirt cheap by 2012. I'm still curious when I with my European P121 and a 160 miles pack will get my car? Or considering I don't know the European price I'm still curious if I can afford it still ?
Cobos�
Mar 8, 2011
Eberhard 300miles pack contra 160miles pack first charging time: you should not think about the charging time. the smaller pack need to be recharged more often and you still have the range limitation. Its true, the higher milage pack need longer to be charged, but you will maintain a higher level of charge by charging every night. But if you need it, you have the higher range. Its more the question, will you be able to recharge the amount of juice you spend every day overnight? its not a question of the size of the pack. But the bigger back will give you the comfort to charge every night and no need for looking for charging between while driving the daily routine. The lifetime of the 300mile pack is double of the 160miles back, because the used hub of the SOC is less, give also less stress to the pack. I estimate 80.000 miles for the 160mile pack and 200.000 miles for the 300miles pack. Even if the 300miles will have only 80% left, it has still the range of the 230miles pack.�
Mar 8, 2011
Eberhard George Blankenship wrote:
hope, after getting a focus on the european charging infrastructure, Model S will provide 3-phase charging as JB Straubel promisted.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch I think my plan will be to get the 230 mi pack (so I can spend more on options without my wife killing me)...then upgrade the pack 5 years down the road.�
Mar 8, 2011
JRod0802 I think I remember reading somewhere that for the Roadster the bottleneck was the motor at low speeds (like up to 30 or 40 mph), but after that the bottle neck was the battery. I remember that I found this interesting because it would mean that off the line the Roadster Sport (with it's upgraded motor) is faster than the regular Roadster, but flooring it on the highway would result in the same acceleration between the two. Does anyone else remember this?
If the same holds true for the Model S, then maybe the higher battery pack models will have better acceleration at speed, but be the same (or slightly slower due to weight increase) acceleration off the line as the smaller battery packs.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel Yea, that probably won't fly for me. Part of sell of the car is low maintenance. Buying an expensive car, then having to spend $30k in 5 years, which is as much as our current cars cost new, to upgrade packs, isn't exactly living up to the concept of low maintenance.
I'm still stunned at the 10k bump. It's hard for me to justify that extra expense based on the rarity of my longer trips. But then, it's also hard to justify the 160 version at $60-65k after options that, when not in range mode and/or after some battery degredation, only really has about a 100 mile range. I really want the Model S, but I'm having a hard time finding any combination of price point and range that I can rationalize as a good fit.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch The idea being that in 5-7 years after receiving the car (just under 7-9 years from now), I should be able to get a 300 mi range battery for WAY less than $30K...or perhaps a 500 mi pack.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch Since a very-well-equipped signature edition is expected to be around $80K, I'm anticipating that I should be able to get the 230mi pack with a number of nice options for $65-68K after the tax credit. Subtract another $8,000 for fuel savings over 5 years (according to Tesla's figures), and you're not a whole lot different than a decently equipped BMW.�
Mar 8, 2011
ljbad4life Wow, the 300 mile pack (being available first) came out of left field. At this point there seems like nothing stopping me from buying one day one. :love:�
Mar 8, 2011
donauker Agree 100%!
I am now suddenly OK with Signature series. There was no way I was going that route and be stuck with a 230 mile pack.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel That's the 2nd time you've mentioned $80k for the Sig, but I can't find any such mention anywhere on the Tesla site or FAQ. Where does $80k for a Sig come from?
Ignoring the tax stuff, the base car is 57500, +20k for batteries is 77500. I'd be shocked if leather and other luxuries weren't another $10k, so I'm not sure how the 300 equipped Sig is less than nearly $90k.�
Mar 8, 2011
Arnold Panz That's probably about right, but then in the US with the $7500 tax credit you're right back down closer to $80k. I figure that the battery pack is by far the most expensive option/upgrade, and a roughly $80k purchase price (after the tax credit) would make sense given that the original deposit was $40k, making it about half the price of the car.�
Mar 8, 2011
AnOutsider $30k in 5 years on what? The 300 mile pack is a $20k upgrade, and in 5 years, the tech in the pack could be significantly cheaper than it will be at launch.
What "bump"? Batteries weren't priced previously, and most people expected it to be about $20k extra.�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk Since the sig series reservation number is pathetic, the 300 mile pack was announced to most likely sell the 1k units they planned on. Otherwise I doubt they could get 1k people to reserve the sig series.�
Mar 8, 2011
kgb I'm not saying that these guys are the best source for this kind of info, but I think that Tesla once announced a price (or mentioned a ball-park price) for the Model S Signature. But I am getting the impression they are backing away from it quietly.
Tesla Says First Model S Sedans Will Be Priced From $77,400
Tesla Model S pricing and delivery details confirmed -- Engadget
Price, plan updated on Tesla's Model S sedan | New Mexico Business Weekly�
Mar 8, 2011
AnOutsider KGB, I see that as mere guesses/interpretations from the writers. They're quoting the battery prices I believe, which obviously do not encompass any possible options (which also have not been released yet)�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel I'm not sure I see any reason to believe it'll be cheaper in 5 years. Battery tech improves, but as demand for batteries does up with EV sales, I'm not sure I see any definitive reason for prices to go down (though capacity/weight may improve). And I seriously doubt I'd get any kind of resale value on my old battery when I upgraded, so it'd be a $30k upgrade. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised of a surcharge to handle disposing of the old battery.
For the sake of argument, let's say prices drop by 50% in 5 years. The 300 mile battery now costs $30k, so $15k in 5 years. You want to trade out your 160 mile battery. Your original battery has been made worthless by age and technology, so that $10k is unrecoverable. The new 300 battery costs $15k, so basically after 5 years it only costs you 10+15=25k for the 300 mile battery instead of $30k. Not a big savings over the cost right now. For future buyers, the battery cost reduction is great, but it won't likely save much for early adopters that want to later upgrade.
The bump for each battery level. What else would I be talking about? It's a 10k bump for each level.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel I guess it's a wait and see. The Roadster has some pretty insane price jumps for interior options. The Model S is a much bigger car so even if they gain advantages of scale, it's balanced by more material and work for interior stuff, so I could see the options being just as expensive as on the Roadster. I hope not.�
Mar 8, 2011
Eberhard tesla want to be a successful company. Therefore it needs to make profit. this is only possible on the battery pack, where they can sell their USB for a good margin. That is ok. All buyers will be part of the story. Tesla will reinvest all profit into new products, making tesla even more successful in al long term.�
Mar 8, 2011
Doug_G The "old" battery will still have significant life in it, for use as a stationary power source. There are valuable recycleable materials in it, such as lithium. They really ought to pay you for the old battery. But of course they'll probably say that's rolled into the replacement cost...�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel Absolutely, I'm not criticizing the choice on Tesla's end. It's just more than I expected. I wasn't among those versed in current costs or any sorts of projections, so the per level cost has given me some sticker shock and thrown a bit of a wrench into my previous thoughts about what I can afford and when.�
Mar 8, 2011
AnOutsider Where's 30k? Unless my math is crazy, it's 10k for the 230 and an additional 10k for the 300, so $20k total.
Again, $20k and $10k respectively.
WHAT 10k? The 160 mile pack is INCLUDED in the vehicle, you don't pay an extra 10k over MSRP just for the base battery.
It's actually be $15k since the 160 mile battery comes with the car, so in 5 years if prices drop 50%, then the price of the upgrade you would have gotten at the start is also 50%
Your post made it seem like the 10k was a bump over "something else"... Considering it was the first time we heard about battery pricing, it wasn't really a "bump" up over anything but MSRP, which we all knew wouldn't include anything but the base battery.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel I was going to rant that you're being dense on purpose, but I'll try just a straight example.
That 160 battery in the base model isn't free. It costs 10k, but that's rolled into the base price. Just like the price of doors, windows, tires, etc. The 300 mile battery costs $30k. The default base battery is worth $10k to Tesla because they can put it in a 160 model, so the upgrade costs you $20k.
5 years down the road, you're not upgrading anymore. Your old battery isn't worth $10k trade in anymore to Tesla. It's old, degraded, and technologically outdated. You're buying a brand new 300 battery and basically throwing the old one away.
If that doesn't make sense to you, I'm really at a loss. I don't mean to be insulting, I'm simply not sure how to explain the concept. Maybe someone else can chime in.�
Mar 8, 2011
Arnold Panz I agree with AnOutsider, actually. How do you have any idea what the base battery pack "costs"? Up until yesterday, all we knew was that we could get a 160 mile battery pack for $57k for the base car, but I've seen no information that indicates that the cost of that pack is $10k, only that the extra miles (240 and 300) cost an extra $10k respectively. Actually, if I had to guess I'd assume that the base 160 mile pack costs more than $10k as part of the total $57k, but we'll never know (nor should we) because it's part of the base price. And what "cost" are we referring to -- Tesla's, or the customer's? I'm assuming the $10k extra for the 240 and 300 mile packs are being sold at a profit by Tesla (at least I sure hope they are!), which means they're costing Tesla significantly less than $10k in "cost" to produce the extra mileage.
The base 160 mile pack loses value the same way the doors, windows etc. will lose value at that point being several years old, yet you wouldn't say that a "base" door costs $2k even if an option for a cooler door cost an extra $2k. So why are you making the same assumption about the battery pack?�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel True, but that only makes a trade-in 5 years later even financially worse as it's a larger sunk cost that's going to have a larger depreciation. Let's run some numbers for fun.
Base costs today. The 160 is rolled into the price, so I'm choosing an arbitrary price for the base battery. If it helps, pretend you could buy a base model at a reduced price if you got it without a battery.
160 = $10,000
240 = $20,000
300 = $30,000
Day One trade-in: You give Tesla the 160 and $20,000 and walk away with the 300.
Lets's say battery prices drop 50% over 5 years and assume degradation and tech has dropped your battery's trade-in value to nothing:
160 = $5,000
240 = $10,000
300 = $15,000
Year 5 upgrade = Trade in the 160 for $0 (it's worthless), buy the 300 for $15000. So, on year 5, your cost for the upgrade is $15000 rather than the initial upgrade cost of $20,000. Not a big savings despite the 50% battery price drop. If Tesla does buy back the old battery for something other than peanuts, then that helps.
Now, let's assume the Day One costs are:
160 = $30,000
240 = $40,000
300 = $50,000
Same day one trade in scenario. You trade in the $30,000 160 battery and get a 300 for another $20,000.
Year 5 changes quite a bit though. Trade in the 160 for $0 (it's worthless), buy the 300 for $25000. So, on year 5, your cost for the upgrade is $25000, more than what the original upgrade would have cost you! Again, any value in the original battery helps.
The more expensive you assume the base battery, the worse off you are upgrading years later because of the value lost in the depreciation of your original battery. If there's some reason to believe a 5 year old battery would hold it's value, then things change, but if the assumption is that battery tech is going to make batteries cheaper than it also means your 5 year old battery depreciates heavily.
Exactly. If you came back 5 years later and wanted to upgrade your door, you're going to pay full price for the new door because they don't want your old door back as trade-in after 5 years. If you'd done it at the time of purchase, you're not buying a brand new door, you're paying the upgrade difference.�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk There is only one way to look at this.
You are buying a luxury car. By the time the battery needs replacement, most luxury car owners get a new car, so no need for battery replacement.
If you are trying to save money driving the s, you need to take a basic math class.�
Mar 8, 2011
AnOutsider I was going to respond, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile since I think your core argument is flawed. You're giving a 10k valuation to the base battery that comes with the car. You have no idea what it costs, or what the actual cost is to Tesla for it or the upgraded batteries. If I buy the 2.0T jetta vs the slower 2.5 jetta, I can't just take the cost of the upgraded engine and extrapolate that I paid X for the base engine when I bough the base car can I?
I now see what you're getting at, but I don't agree with the reasoning.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel You were stating that in 5 years it'll likely be cheap to upgrade to a 300 mile battery. I'm pointing out that no matter what the initial battery price is right now, that's not going to be true unless you're seeing battery prices drop by multiple orders of magnitude, like 300-400%.
As for the cost to Tesla, I'm not sure why it's relevant. The only cost that matters is what you, the end consumer, have to pay. Even if Tesla could invent batteries by pure thought power for free, if they're charging X dollars then it cost you X dollars.�
Mar 8, 2011
AnOutsider I said that the batteries would be cheaper, I didn't say overall the cost of owning the car would be cheaper over the course of 5 years based on your numbers. You HAVE to buy the 160mi battery, it's what comes with the car. If you waited X years to get the larger battery, the cost of the battery would be cheaper. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel Todd Burch said he'd buy the 230 mile pack now because his wife would balk at a higher price, then in 5 years get the 300. My point is that paying for the sunk cost of a battery now then basically throwing that battery away in 5 years and purchasing a new 300 mile battery saves absolutely nothing unless battery prices drop completely through the floor by orders of magnitude.
The fact I invented numbers for the base battery pack, the part you've taken the most exception to, is largely irrelevant to the mathematics of whether or not it's cheaper to upgrade later or now. Batteries will likely be cheaper in the future, but due to sunk costs and depreciation, it's likely upgrading now is better (or at least no worse) than later even despite battery prices drops. Unless, as I noted above, the drops are multiple orders of magnitude.
As for qwk's snarky response, I'm not sure what the point of that was. I suppose I'm not a typical luxury car buyer because I'm certainly not planning on switching to a new car in 5 years. I'm looking at the Model S as a very long term car, probably 10-15 years, precisely because EV's should have very good longevity as far as maintenance needs. The wife and I typically run on a 10 year cycle for our two cars, staggering one new car every 5 years.�
Mar 8, 2011
strider This news has also thrown my wife and I for a loop. We were planning to get the 230 mile pack as it would be similar to what I have in the Roadster and that is plenty for nearly all the driving we'd do - we also assumed this would be available before the 300-mile packs. We're also planning on keeping her diesel Jeep Liberty for long-distance trips. But this news calls into question whether we should just spring for a sig series. If they're willing to quote a price for a sig and hold themselves to that one could save a bundle on options (as one could have w/ the Roadster sig series). Hmm. Maybe I'll wander by my dealer at some point and ask some questions.�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk Why would anyone throw away a 230 mile pack after 5 yrs?
There are any reasons why it's a great idea to buy a Tesla. Saving money is not one of them.
One of my many reasons are;
saying f u to big oil.
Minimal maintenance
supporting the ONLY car company who is seroius about EV's
helping to cut down on smog to breathe a little easier.
not breathing in carcenogenic gasoline fumes while filling up
Doing all of the above plus more I'm sure I'm missing while having fun driving a higher performance car, is worth the price to me.�
Mar 8, 2011
stopcrazypp Wow, how did this thread evolve into a battery replacement argument? So far we don't even know 5 year replacement is even necessary. Keep in mind Tesla specifies 7 years for the Roadster. Given "end of life" is 70-80% capacity, if you can live with the numbers below, you won't really need replacement. Also keep in mind for the same amount of driving (in miles), the larger battery will last proportionally more miles assuming the typical ~500 cycles of life for all the cells.
70%/80%
160 -112/128
230 - 161/184
300 - 210/240
By the time the Model S is out, the 2008 models of the Roadster will be 4 years old, so if replacement is even necessary, it'll start to become apparent then.
Also keep in mind Tesla's existing program where you can buy a new battery for 7 years later for the Roadster by paying $12k upfront. Tesla might offer a similar program for the Model S.
My own two cents is to buy a battery that will definitely work for you in daily driving, keeping ideally at least a 20% margin (10% top/bottom). The "standard mode" of the Model S will likely have the same restrictions anyways. If you are going to regularly hit range mode, then that is a bad situation to be in, because your battery will degrade faster, which means eventually even range mode won't be enough to make your trip. Also keep in mind some of these range concerns will be offset by much wider availability of J1772 and fast charging infrastructure by the time the car is out and definitely by the time the battery starts showing signs of aging.�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk Another thing to keep in mind are the rebates. These will help with resale value, because when they run out, a new car will be more expensive.�
Mar 8, 2011
Lloyd I believe that we can make an educated guess at the cost of a 300 mile battery at the time of replacement (5 to 7 years or more). Tesla currently will sell you a roadster battery 54KWh at $12,000 PV when it needs to be repalced. If the cost for the cells is linear then a 90kwh battery at replacement would be $20,000. Perhaps Tesla will extend the same pre-purchase replacement deal with the Model S as well. Most people do not keep their cars that long, but EV's are different and I believe that buyers will find them keeping these longer is more cost efficient.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel Sort of water under the bridge now, but for some of us the price gap between battery levels was enough to think about buying low now and replacing the battery a few years later with a much larger one. Given the possibility that battery prices would drop substantially, the thought (myself included, at first) was that this might be a good way to go.
My, controversial, contention after pondering the numbers is that battery prices would have to really, really plummet to make that scenario cost effective.
With all due respect to qwk, as I certainly share his less monetary motivations for a Model S, it sounds like the money isn't nearly as big a deal to him as it is to some of the others of us. I would have never, ever considered a $50k car, much less an $80k, before the Model S. The Model S is a major stretch for me. We're talking, with that sort of money, I could pay my house off 4-5 years earlier if I just keep my current ICE or bought a sensible slightly used ICE.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch Wow. Didn't mean to open up a can of worms here.
First, I should have said that I would replace the battery at end of life....perhaps more like 7, or maybe even 10 years. (I was using the value of 100,000 mi that I think I read somewhere, which--due to the length of my daily commute--I'd use up in about 5 years). Of course, due to a number of factors, It might last considerably longer.
Second, ckessel, I see what you're saying. Don't mean to turn this into a battery displacement discussion (although what else do we have to talk about for the next 16+ months
And finally, if Tesla considers 70% capacity the end-of-life for the battery (of course I'd keep using it until the degraded range no longer meets my needs)...the remaining storage capacity is still significant and that battery is still worth quite a bit. If Tesla wouldn't take money for it, I'd wire it into the solar grid on my house...which to me would at least have a few thousand dollars in value.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel That's a really good point. It's resetting the clock on the degredation.
This is the one I'm not sure about. I'm not disputing it's value to you personally, I'm just wondering what the general value is going to be. Tesla isn't going to put those old batteries into a car (Tesla has noted about their recycling desire), so what happens to them? Maybe some 3rd world EV battery market will arise? Maybe some secondary market as solar batteries? And who facilitates that secondary market? It's not like you're going to leave your 900 lb battery laying by the side of the house waiting to sell it to some guy dropping by with a pickup truck to haul it away. Well, I wouldn't think so anyway.�
Mar 8, 2011
dpeilow How Much Does a Tesla Model S Battery Pack Cost You? We do the Math - All Cars Electric�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch To put the battery upgrade thing simply:
If I upgrade to the 300 mi pack right away, I pay an extra $20K and in 5 or 7 or 10 years have a 5 or 7 or 10 year old 300 mi pack.
Or, I get the base pack and pay nothing extra, then in 5 or 7 or 10 years turn it in for a new 300 mi pack @ $15K.
option 1: after 5/7/10 years and $20K, I have a 5/7/10 year old 300 mi pack.
Option 2: after 5/7/10 years and $15k, I have a new 300 mi pack.
I choose option 2.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch True, that's the unknown right now. But 50 kWh of storage is still 50kWh of storage. I'd never take an offer from Tesla on a no-money-back trade-in.
My bets are that Tesla will pay something decent for trade-in batteries (maybe at least $1k?). If not, I'll find someone who will pay for it. If that doesn't work, I'll try to use it myself. And if that doesn't work, I'll eat the cost, lose all faith in the forward movement of technology (and humanity), take my ol' Tesla battery into the lab, and make the world's most powerful (and least portable) tazer gun. Don't taze me bro!�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel True. I suppose if you think of the battery as the "oil" in a current car (granted, one that's changed in mass every X years rather than lots of little times), at least when you change out a Tesla battery you've got something of potential value. When you change out your oil you've got...a hazardous waste.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch And I should clarify about the 50 kWh value. That's remaining capacity of the 300 mi pack at trade-in, rounded to the nearest 50 kWh�
Mar 8, 2011
richkae Thinking that a 5 year old battery is worthless is crazy talk.
First off, the 160 mile batteries are using older cells that are reaping the rewards of large economies of scale. The 300 mile batteries are using the newest leading edge batteries that do not. The big battery packs have a lot more room to come down in cost as the economy of scale catches up.
If today:
160 mile battery is $10k
230 mile battery is $20k
300 mile battery is $30k
and if in 5 years a new ( assuming cost reductions of 20%,27%,33% - I think it will actually be a lot better at the high end ):
160 mile is $8k
230 mile is $14.7k
300 mile is $20k
I'm going to assume that a 5 year old battery has 80% of its original capacity.
A used battery is worth in this ballpark ( linearly scaling against the other options ):
128 mile is worth max $6.4k - probably less due to limited market ( but remember this is probably about as good as what is in 2015 Nissan Leaf )
184 mile is worth max $10.3k min $8k
240 mile is worth max $15.3k min $14.7k
Why wouldnt there be a market for buying and selling batteries?
If you bought a 160, your resale market would be the most limited. It would go to those who are refurbishing crashed Model S cars or destroyed their batteries through abuse.
If you bought a 230, your market would be anyone who originally bought a 160. If they can dispose of their ( now 128 ), they can upgrade their range by almost 50% for about $4k
You can upgrade from your 184 to a 230 or 240 for between $5k and $7k, or to a 300 for $10k to $12k
If you bought a 300, your market is anyone who originally bought a 160 or 230. You could get back to the 300 mile threshold for as little as $5k. That makes the cost of your battery per year about $1k.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch Excellent points Rich.�
Mar 8, 2011
drbradfo The resell value of the 160mile battery pack as a battery pack for a Tesla Model S is probably VERY limited (unless somehow it's compatible both physically and electrically with some other car in the future). The resell value of the battery cells in the 160mile battery pack should be very good. What %? Who knows.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel If you're thinking a 5 year old used battery with 240 mile capacity is going to be worth as much or more than a brand new battery with almost the same capacity, I think you're crazy
I somehow can't see a customer going, "Why, yes! I'd love to pay just as much for the old, used item!"�
Mar 8, 2011
richkae Re: limited resale of 160 mile pack:
Is that a compelling argument that you should buy at least the 230 mile range version?
According to my assumptions above it will be worth at least as much as a new 160 mile pack in 5 years.
The 240 mile pack ( was 300 ) has 10 more miles of range than the 230 mile pack. The lack of warranty probably throws the numbers completely off and I will have to recalculate.
I wonder if there is an opportunity here to get in the business of buying the used packs and reselling them with warranties.
After 9 years of experience the life cycle should be well understood.�
Mar 8, 2011
richkae If you re-do the numbers with an arbitrary discounting the used batteries which makes ( in the case of the 184 and 240 ) them cheaper than newer batteries with significantly less capacity:
The 128 is worth $3.8k ( 40% discount from mileage )
The 184 is worth $7.6k ( 35% ) Now $400 less than a 160 but with 24 more miles.
The 240 is worth $11.3k ( 30% ) Now $3k less than a new 230 but with 10 more miles.
Upgrading from a 128 to a 184 costs you $4.4k
Upgrading from a 184 to a 240 costs you $3.7k
Upgrading from a 184 to a 300 costs you $12.4k
Upgrading from a 240 to a 300 costs you $9.3k
Yes this is all contrived.
But I do believe there will be a used battery market in some form.
Given the assumptions, it seems compelling to buy the 230 mile battery now, but its all moot for me, I will get the 300.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch We don't know for sure, but Tesla's mentioned I think no less than 4 cars with the identical (or almost identical) drivetrain/battery form factor.�
Mar 8, 2011
dsm363 Yeah! I was told a long time ago that the 300 mile pack probably wouldn't be available on launch and would have to get it 6 months or more later than delivery. What an awesome surprise.�
Mar 8, 2011
ckessel I don't have a citation, but I seem to recall Tesla saying battery degradation was saddled shaped. Meaning, fast up front degradation, levels off for years, then fast end of life degradation. If that's true, then a used battery with 200 mile capacity may have a lot shorter life left in it than a new one of the same capacity, which would significantly affect the used battery's value.
Even if it didn't, I'd have to wonder about prices. Even in markets like Books and CDs where degradation of the used product is minimal to it's functionality, new prices are 2-3x that of a used version. Totally different industries and price points, but I think much of the drop in value of used items is customer perception which is going to be somewhat industry agnostic.�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk I'm certainly not filthy rich as you indicate. I have never purchased a brand new car before simply because cars depreciate too fast.
At this point in my life, I would not buy a new car at this price level, and will probably make a few sacrifices to do so. It will be definately worth it as the oil monopoly is going to try and milk everyone until the last drop of oil is extracted out of the earth.
With that being said, I still havent decided which battery I will get. There isn't enough info out yet (performance difference, second battery upfront availability etc). Since Tesla sells a 56kwh roadster battery replacement for
$12k, which means if there is a possibility to get an S replacement battery close to the same size(230 pack) for around the same price, I would just get that rather than upgrading a 160 mile battery. The 70 mile difference is not really worth the $10k extra to me as you can get that in less than 2hrs of charging with a nema14-50 which are everywhere.�
Mar 8, 2011
Doug_G True, but I'm not certain that's what we're seeing. I've collected a few Roadster logs for software testing, and the older ones don't start dropping in range until 20k to 30k miles.
Mind you, this information should be taken with a big grain (lump) of salt. This may be more of an indication of changes made to the range calculation in firmware updates.�
Mar 8, 2011
vfx And
LloydI don't think this is right. Tesla will sell you in advance a warranty for battery replacement for $12k but to TTBOMK, the price of a new roadster pack is closer to $30K.�
Mar 8, 2011
Lloyd VFK
Yes, and according to the article posted earlier, the cost of the 300 mile pack in the S is 55% of the cost of the car. Tesla will sell you a replacement now because they know that the cost of batteries will go down, and they have the use of your $$ until the time that your battery needs replacing!�
Mar 8, 2011
richkae I have no way to prove it, but my gut tells me that Tesla's cost on a Roadster pack is already under $12k.�
Mar 8, 2011
kgb You are missing part of the comparison:
Option 1: You start with a new 300 mile pack (-$20,000), after 5/7/10 years you have 70% of a 300 mile pack (or 210 mile pack)
Option 2: You start with a new 160 mile pack ($0), after 5/7/10 years you have (-$15,000) and a new 300 mile pack.
So for the 1st 5/7/10 years with option 2 is worse than the used pack in option 1.
I bring this up not because I am advocating one option over the other (I haven't decided yet.) I am only trying to point out that your logic is flawed.�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk There is no way in the world Tesla would gamble on prices coming down that much if the pack cost $30k right now.
They already said that their costs are below $200kwh.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch No flaw in my logic--I get it. I didn't say one was better than the other...just that I choose option 2 because I can't afford the 300 mi pack *plus* the options I want all up front (actually, I could afford it but the wife doesn't want to see me spend that much money). So option 1 is off the table. I'm actually leaning toward option 3--the 230 pack. I have a 70 mile daily commute and the 160mi pack won't give me much cushion in range after a few years of real-world driving).�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk I think he is trying to say that the first pack has less range, but you get an X number of miles from the car for free. Then you buy a pack for an $X amount and that costs you close to the same $$ as you would spend on the initial upgrade with the added benefit of more range.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch Thanks qwk...that's the benefit I was seeing for my personal situation but wasn't explaining it well. I guess I'm just using a lower range pack to bide my time until the larger range packs drop in price-- as long as I have enough ideal miles to feel comfortable, the longer range pack can wait.�
Mar 8, 2011
Todd Burch Hehe, didn't see it at first but that "All Cars Electric" article that Dpielow posted mentions my line of thinking:
"Battery packs are bound to drop in price in the coming years. If Tesla offers an upgrade route for battery packs then perhaps the smart move would be to buy a smaller range Model S for now, upgrading to a larger range battery pack when the cost per mile has dropped significantly."�
Mar 8, 2011
qwk Another thing to consider is that if in the near future quick chargers become common, the need for bigger packs diminishes.
IMO, Tesla should have made the 230 pack standard even if it made the car cost a bit more. It's going to be a tough choice with 3 different packs to choose from.
From a business standpoint, this configuration of packs will make Tesla the most $$$ though.�
Mar 8, 2011
stopcrazypp That's going to go counter to their goal of making Model S more affordable though. There's still going to be a significant market that doesn't need that much range. The 160 pack will still be larger than pretty much what all competitors are offering.�
Mar 8, 2011
Cobos Yes the 160 mile pack is enough to get us to our cabin at the lake and then tricklecharge so I get back. The optimistic 100 mile range of all the other cars out now is just not enough to be able to do this comfortably with a bit of wear on the pack. For me the $57400 with the European price addition of around $25000 is stretching my budget might thin. I will only look at the 160 mile pack since I simply can't afford the 300 pack.
So for customers like me this makes a lot of sense. And I do feel that many of these early adopters are customers who before never have bought a new car since it's a bad idea from an economy standpoint.
Cobos�
Mar 9, 2011
Eberhard Very little is known about the lifetime and max. cycle of the new cell except that Panasonic claims better performance. But the pack has a calendar lifetime too. I estimate the 80% degradation for the 160miles pack at 80.000 mile. For the 300miles around 200.000miles. Only those, whose expected milages for the next 8-10years are within this numbers has a choice to made. For the cost: the real cost (except the 300miles version, those cell may be more expensive) are the packaging cost with Assembling, BMS and cooling. The cells are inexpensive. I estimate the calculated prices of 160miles at $30.000 for 230/300miles at $40.000/$50.000. The smallest pack will have the highest cost of ownership/milage.�
Mar 9, 2011
Todd Burch Here's another way to think about the 300 mile pack...I'd like to hear your feedback. (I'm going to use U.S. cost, including the federal tax rebate here...others will need to make adjustments). There's a little bit of speculation here, but hopefully not too much:
Let's compare a BMW 535i (starting at $50k in the US) versus the Model S (also starting around $50k after the tax rebate).
For the Model S, consider the base car (no options) with the 300 mi pack upgrade:
If the pack is at 70% after 100,000 miles, as some predictions (including Tesla's) show, that means I have 210 ideal miles left (about 168 real-world driving miles, if you consider real-world mileage to be about 80% of ideal miles).
I'm guessing perhaps that my pack might be at 50% at 150,000 miles. That means 150 ideal miles, or about 120 real-world driving miles at 80% of ideal miles).
120 real-world driving miles is the bottom of my personal limit, so I'm going to consider that I can keep a 300 mi pack for 150,000 miles in this case.
At 300 Wh/mi + 15% for charging inefficiency, that means I'm using about 345 Wh/mi to drive. 150,000 miles @ 345 Wh/mi = 51.750 MWh of electricity.
At 15 cents/kWh (25% more than my rate here--to account for increasing electricity costs), that's a total electricity cost of $7,762 for 150,000 miles.
So for the base Model S with 300mi pack upgrade, I get 150,000 miles for $20,000 (pack upgrade) + $7,762 (electricity) for a total of $27,762.
For the BMW 535i (which gets about 25 mpg average), consider that I also get no options (just like the Model S)--so the car itself costs about the same.
Assuming gas is at $4 per gallon average over the span of that 150,000 miles (about 10 years for me--which might be a conservative price), that same 150,000 mi costs (150,000 mi * $4/gal) / 25 mpg = $24,000.
So for the base BMW, I get 150,000 mi for $24,000. Not too far from the Model S.
Throw in lower maintenance cost, savings to the environment, convenience (no need to go to the gas station), the decent chance of getting at least a little bit of money back by turning in a used battery, and you probably come out ahead with the 300 mi pack...no?
Again, this all assumes I can hold 50% capacity by 150k mi, which is of course a question mark at this point.
Thoughts?�
Mar 9, 2011
Todd Burch Considering my minimum range is about 120 real-world miles, I can follow the same calculations with the 230 mi pack:
230 mi @ 100,000 miles = 230 * 70% = 161 ideal miles, or about 128.8 real-world miles...so I can get 100,000 miles of useful life out of the 230 mi pack.
100,000 mi * 345 Wh/mi = 34.5 MWh of electricity. 34,500 kWh * $0.15/kWh = $5175.
So for the Model S 230 mi pack and 100,000 miles, I get $10,000 (230 mi pack upgrade) + $5175 in electricity = $15,175.
For the BMW, (100,000 mi * $4/gal) / (25 mpg) = $16,000 in fuel costs.
So for the 230 mi pack, you come out AHEAD of the BMW.
The 160 mi pack gives me 128 real-world miles in range mode right out of the gate, so it's not enough for my personal needs.
Based on the above, the 230 mi pack seems like the best deal for me...unless the 300 mi chemistry has a longer life.�
Mar 9, 2011
richkae Over the last 6 years U.S. average gasoline is up 11% per year.
Over the last 10 year span it went up about 9% per year.
Over the last 20 years it has gone up about 6% per year.
At 6% gasoline averages $4.75/gallon over 10 years ( starting at $3.40 - prices from a couple weeks ago )
At 9% it averages $5.72/gallon
At 11% it averages $6.52/gallon
( premium gas for will at least be 20c more )�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét