May 13, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel Here is my speculation on what tesla will release next in terms of Model S. We all know the Model X is coming out July/August time frame with higher capacity battery.
Most here agree the Model X will come in 2 forms:
1) 85KWh version
2) ???KWh version. I think it will be 105KWh.
This relates to the Model S because most likely it will share the same battery form factor. This will also likely be the case with the Model 3 to keep battery production smooth, compatible, and easy. It also makes replacement and servicing easy.
That being said here is why:
The Model S 70D have 240 miles of EPA range.
The Model S 85D have 270 miles of EPA range.
Going from 70KWh to 85KWh we see a 30 miles range increase. Or 15KWh yield 30 additional miles at the higher KWh number.
Hence if we are going to see a 300 miles Model S, we will need another 30 miles. Given the non-linear trend, I say we are looking at either a 105KWh battery if we have higher energy dense Li-ion cells or 110KWh with the current cells tech. The current 85KWh battery currently occupies most of the current battery space. I would think the increase will come in higher energy dense cells. Factoring everything in, I would say with confident, the new Model S will be a 105D with new battery cells technology.
Now when this will be available is to be seen. I think because of the upcoming release of the Model X, I don't expect the 105D Model S to be coming out anytime soon. The gigafactory is not up and running yet.
So my prediction:
Model S 105D with 295 or 300 EPA miles with newer cells technology added when the gigafactory starts churring out cells probably later in the year ~Fall/Winter 2015 timeframe. The Model X will also be in 2 form, the 85D and 105D version and will be using up ALL the new cells if there will be a new cell batteries.
What do you guys think?�
May 13, 2015
zer0cool Unless batteries get lighter, 15 additional kwh will not result in 30 more miles due to the added weight.�
May 13, 2015
wk057 I feel like every couple of days I'm posting that we're not likely to see a larger battery pack any time soon (years).�
May 13, 2015
brianman Many expect this but nobody outside of Tesla (and NDA folks perhaps) knows this.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree with you w/r/t to chemistry. I'm not convinced yet that Tesla won't be "creative" with pack shape to allow them to fit more cells in the X top-end offering.
"But but battery swap..." - Until that's actually real, it's mostly an academic counterargument like saying solar doesn't make sense because the long-term value is zero after the sun dies.�
May 13, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel I would disagree... if you mean larger as in larger capacity and not in size. The current cells in the latest teslas are still the same capacity as the cells created by panasonic way back in 2012 when they first started offering it. Obviously they have tweeted the chemistry to accommodate higher charging and discharging rate. And other benefits like higher cycle counts, But no real improvements in energy density. With 3 years advancements, the energy density has to increase a bit like all other battery manufactures, i.e. LG Chem, Samsung, etc. Otherwise, the competitive lead Panasonic as over their competitors will mean nothing if they cannot get at least 10-15% capacity increase from their cells in 3 years. All the while, their competitors are getting closer and closer to their current energy density cells.
Moreover, with the X, there is only one way to keep the current range or get close to the current range as the Model S and that is increase capacity per cell. Or do whatever trick they can to get more battery in smaller/lighter packaging. In either case, they will effectively increased the energy density of the battery.
Remember I am not saying there will be a major break through in energy density with Li-ion batteries, but more of small incremental increases like Musk has said. I would venture to guess by now, Panasonic have their chemistry for mass manufacturing design ready to hand off to Tesla and its gigafactory. Maybe 10-15% increase in energy capacity for the same form factor if they are still using 18650 Cells. Otherwise, overall 10-15% energy density increase to offset the larger vehicles penalty of the Model X.�
May 13, 2015
MorrisonHiker The gigafactory is ahead of schedule but even with talk of opening early, they are referring to 2016, not 2015. They still have a LOT of work to do before the first battery rolls off the line at the gigafactory.�
May 13, 2015
MsElectric The Model X with an 85 KWh battery will likely yield just about 240 miles of range based on added weight and higher drag. I see no way Tesla will sell a $100K+ upper trim level Model X that barely delivers 240 miles of range. I would be really surprised if the Model X is released with a max battery of only 85KWh. People who buy the Model X are more likely going to be families that travel and they will likely need at least about a 300 mile range.�
May 13, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel If the Model X will get 300+ miles EPA, then we are looking at probably 120+KWh pack IMO. However, I think that will be unlikely given the current energy density. But then again, maybe the X will allow The stacking of 2 smaller model S packs. But then cost will be high. I am not saying it isn't possible, I just don't expect it.�
May 13, 2015
amzng_ev The powerwall has 7KWH and 10KWH options. I've also heard that they are 1/10 of a Model S battery, so I predict there will be an exclusively AWD 100KWH battery coincided with the release of the Model X.�
May 13, 2015
stopcrazypp The thing is Panasonic built a big lead early on, but battery development comes in steps (not actually gradual) so competitors are eroding on that lead. Panasonic has a long overdue 4000mAh chemistry with silicon anode (which actually is heavier, but takes up less space) that was supposed to come out in 2013. Tesla is likely using the 3400mAh which came out in 2012 (Tesla announced plans to use 3.1Ah in 2010, but the cell count of the production pack supports 3400mAh as the capacity). And Panasonic has only released a 3600mAh version in 2014 (which would get Tesla to 90kWh).
http://news.panasonic.com/press/news/official.data/data.dir/en091225-3/en091225-3.html�
May 13, 2015
JohnSnowNW I'm no expert, so I can't comment on how likely a larger battery pack would be. However, I could really make use of the larger one in the X.
I guess if they add a few more supercharger stations on our route through Iowa it wouldn't be such an issue...but I really need a Model X with around 240 (loaded vehicle) miles.�
May 13, 2015
Lerxt I really can't see a larger battery for the Model S or X for a fair while. The extra cost would make the cars prohibitively expensive.�
May 13, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel I don't think the cost of the batteries are prohibitively expensive. In fact, I think the cost of batteries have been going downs for years. I wager back in 2012, tesla was make very little on each car because of the battery cost. Now they have a substantial margins built in. The battery cost will only decrease as time goes on. I can't really speculate on battery cost for tesla, but if they keep the model S's price high as they are doing now, it just getting better for them until some other companies are offering something better for less. Point is I don't see tesla passing the battery cost saving on to its consumer anytime soon. When the Model 3 comes out, then they will have no choice but to pass it on.�
May 14, 2015
scott jones Years? With respect, I 100% disagree. I've said since the X was announced, it would NEED a 300 mile battery as SUV drivers are more likely to want to take longer trips. And that 100+kw battery would be available to the S when the X comes out, if not BEFORE.
My reasoning, there's NO WAY, their top of the line "sports car" (the S) would have less range than their SUV. There's also no logical reason not to if they share the same skateboard.
Other reasons I have stated in the past... The S's motors are under-powered by the current 85kw. The cars can rip to 60mph, but can't come close to powering the 691 hp of the P.
Why make a P, if you can't use the motors even close to their potential.
So:
S will have bigger battery, for distance, continual speed, and to interest more people who are worried about range anxiety, and I believe 300 miles is key.
Scott�
May 14, 2015
blackscraper I will put it straight, I backed out an order of S85D since 70D had been on the shelf. I won't place an order until some bigger pack is an option. TACC and dual motor are nice-to-have features, but if purchasing the car pushes to my financial limitation, I will definitely opt for a bigger pack. In short, I won't buy a $100K car that will lengthen a 2.5-hour trip to 3-hour. As to the price, I don't see it being prohibitively high. 100KWH industrial backup power pack is sold for $25K, why are you expecting an additional 25KWH will let the price go through the roof? At least I am not expecting it to be higher than TACC and dual motor combined.�
May 14, 2015
wk057 $100 says the Model X has a max 85kWh pack at launch.�
May 14, 2015
FlasherZ How about $100 to charity? I'll take that bet.
I think it depends on how much the Model X's form costs in terms of mileage vs. Model S. I would hate to see the range reduced on the X, as there are certain scenarios that I enjoy with that range today - for example, skipping every other supercharger on a road trip saves us some time.�
May 14, 2015
scott jones I'll take that bet as well. The money going to the winners charity.�
May 14, 2015
MartinAustin It's always great to be right when you were in the minority, and I wish you good luck with that, but respectfully, Occam's Razor says the Model X Design Studio page will be where the reveal of the new battery happens.
We all know the Model X will weigh more than the Model S, and have more aerodynamic drag.
There is no way they will release a more expensive vehicle whose range is below the 270 miles EPA / 310 miles NEDC of the Model S 85D. The Model X will be their new flagship vehicle with latest generation autopilot hardware, version 7.0 software as standard, and largest battery. The Model X range will either be the same as the Model S, or further.
IMO the only question that's worth a debate on an enthusiasts' forum is the size of the new battery. 90? 95? 100? 105? or 110?
�
May 14, 2015
Merrill I agree, I do not see the Model X with only one battery size. We know there will be no 60 so we will have an 85 and something higher.�
May 14, 2015
MartinAustin The base variant will ship with the 70KWh battery, according to a chap at the Austin Domain store. (sales staff aren't always right though)�
May 14, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel with 70KWh and the penalty of the weight and size of the Model X, we can see 200 miles range for the model X. Maybe it will work maybe it won't, but who knows. All the people here are speculating just as I am. My take is 85KWh and 105KWh which will mean the Model S in the future will be 105KWh once the factory is up and running and churning out enough cells to cover Model X and Model S production.�
May 14, 2015
FlasherZ It may also be that the Model X allows for a deeper pack that the Model S can't have. It doesn't have to be new cell chemistry, either. I'm betting based on the weight and size that the range penalty will be too big to maintain desirable range from an 85 kWh pack.
I guess I'll know in June or July.�
May 14, 2015
brianman Indeed:
�
May 14, 2015
AmpedRealtor Didn't Elon say that the Model X will get the 70 kWh battery on the low end? I swear I read that he said that, either on the quarterly call or elsewhere.�
May 14, 2015
HankLloydRight And I believe there are just as many "soccer moms" who want a Model X for running the kids all around town, and would rarely, if ever, need the full range of the battery. They'll be ecstatic just to start with a full "tank" every morning, and are also price sensitive so they'll be happy to buy an 85kwh Model X. One size (or only larger sizes) doesn't fit all, especially when there's a $10k to $29k price difference.
So for that reason, I'm on the betting side that we will see a low end 85kwh Model X (or 90kwh if there are incremental improvements).
At the same time, I don't see the utility for a 70kwh battery in the Model X, but like the original 40kwh battery offered for the MS, I wouldn't be surprised if it makes a brief appearance at launch in order to grab the headlines "Model X announced--- prices START AT $75,000"�
May 14, 2015
scott jones Agreed, that's why I said it's "more likely" SUV drivers will want to go 300 miles but not JUST Long trips... Hence the reason I believe there will be an 85 kW battery and a 100 kW to make it more sellable to more people who have different needs... And maybe even a 70 kW for those who don't need the distance and who want to save more money�
May 14, 2015
cantdecide There are also a couple other options, like having two battery packs in the car... A swappable 85kwh same as for S as well as a more fixed 20kwh battery, perhaps 2 power walls, for light rare use.�
May 15, 2015
chriSharek Your analogy about a 2.5 hour trip becoming a 3 hour trip is interesting. Even if you have a larger battery pack, your 4 hour trip will then be a 4.5 hour trip and so on and so forth. This argument defeats itself.�
May 15, 2015
AmpedRealtor Model X is using the same chassis/underbody as the Model S. In that respect, I doubt stacking battery packs would be an option. My bets are on three configs - 70, 85, and something in the 100-105 range. The X70 will exist just to give a lower entry price point, but most will opt for the 85 or larger pack. Within 6 months of shipping, Tesla will cancel the X70 citing low demand. Sound familiar? I would expect the Model S to get the larger pack by mid 2016.�
May 15, 2015
MsElectric I agree with everything you said except I doubt it makes sense to offer BOTH 70 and 85. At that point either someone is going to be really frugal and get the 70D or they will want the absolute max range and will get the 1xxD. Personally I can't imagine paying $10K for only $15Kwh difference when a 1xxD option is available. I think the 85D option will disappear when the larger capacity pack becomes available.
Also it is easier for them to maintain the logistics of just 2 battery packs rather than 3.�
May 15, 2015
Evbwcaer This might sound like an odd question, but why is everybody so sure the X with weigh more and be less aero? It is the case that it probably will be both, but maybe not. One example are the wheels on the Model S.
They appear to have made no effort to make the wheels efficient, outside of the aero wheels. I know its not a huge deal, but if a more efficient wheel gets you 10-15 miles more per range charge, you've already brought the 70 meaningfully closer to the 85. Maybe all Xs will have air suspension and be able to ride lower than coil sprung Ss.
Tesla is so progressive, I know physics constrain them, but I bet the X will be nearly as aero, not weigh much more, and maybe have some other tricks too.
It was Tesla after all that added AWD, power, and efficiency all at the same time.�
May 15, 2015
Fiver The batteries used in the powerwall are different from the ones used in the car. They talked about the different chemistries a bit during the earnings call. The 10KW/h one for backup is only meant to be fully discharged a few times a year, similar to a lead acid setup (even though it isn't lead acid). Whereas the one for load shaving was meant to be discharged every night.
Both are still different from the battery chemistries used in the car batteries.�
May 15, 2015
Nomad Hmm. I think we'll see 85 kWh and 120 kWh packs around the time the Model 3 comes out. JB frequently references the doubling of the energy density in battery packs every 10 years or so. More recently, it has worked out to be about a 40% increase from 2008 to 2013, iirc. If we extrapolate that conservative number to 2018 to the 60 kWh and 85 kWh packs, we end up with 84 kWh and 119 kWh, respectively.
This will obviously be great for range, but it will also be a necessary upgrade to help differentiate the Model S/X from the Gen 3 platform. The top of the line Model 3 has the potential to be on par with the P85D when it comes to performance, thanks to improved cell chemistry and cooling. For that reason, I think we will see massive upgrades to the Model S packs within (+/-) 6 months of the Model 3 release.�
May 15, 2015
Panu My speculation: X will ship with 70 and 95 batteries. 85 battery (which is too close to 70) will be discontinued so 70 and 95 will be the battery options for Model S too.�
May 16, 2015
chriSharek That "physics" you mentioned does not allow an SUV to be more aero than a Sedan. Simple as that. Just look at the frontal area for each. This is the prime input for calculating drag. The Model X will clearly be larger than the Model S. There is NO way it will be more aerodynamic.
This frustrates me with all the stupid little ICE SUVs such as the CR-V, Highlander, Escape, etc. Americans think they need to "sit up high" or "more room" in an SUV. The rest of the world gets it. Americans are just spoiled. SUVs are ALWAYS overweight and underpowered when compared with a sedan with an equivalent drivetrain.
- - - Updated - - -
Panu, since you're in a guessing/betting mood, when do you think this will happen? In the fall with the release of the X? I'm ordering MS in a week, but not taking delivery until November. Wondering if I'll have the option to upgrade. . .�
May 16, 2015
Panu I'm guessing that it will happen at the same time or soon after Model X battery options are revealed which will be summer or autumn. A lot of things can happen before November, not just battery upgrade. If you always wait for new features you can basically wait forever
By the way why are you ordering now and taking delivery in November? When production of your car has not yet started there is good chance you can upgrade, at least for a small fee ($500).�
May 16, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel I agree with panu. I think when the model x comes out the 85kwh will be gone. However i still think thr high end version will be 105kwh. 70Kwh for the model x will be a bit difficult. But then again as long as modular, tesla can easily build batteries with different capacity.
I expect another price drop or sale on the old cars around oct or nov timeframe again this year. This probably when i will make the purchase.�
May 16, 2015
Evbwcaer
There is no law of physics that says an SUV will be less aero than a sedan. Again, I am not saying the X will be more aero, but I also don't think Tesla is going to just roll-over dead and concede this...the X will 99.9% be less aero, but maybe not by much.
Make it ride lower at highway speed, puts more aero wheels on it, use any advances in LRR tires, have side-view cameras or at least the ability to retrofit when laws change, adaptive vents/louvers/spoilers. Not specifically related to aerodynamics, but lighter aluminum alloys have come out since the S began production.
My point is that I suspect Tesla will surprise us with how close the X is to the S in terms of efficiency.�
May 16, 2015
David99 The "coefficient drag" is not an absolute number. It has no dimension. It's a multiplier to calculate the actual air drag at different speeds depending on the size of the vehicle. If the Model S and Model X have the same cd of 0.24 (or whatever it is) the Model X will have a higher air drag because it is larger and has a larger front area. It will also be heavier than the Model S. There is no way the Model X will match the Model S efficiency as Tesla has been, and still is, fine tuning the Model S over time. They already reduced weight over the first years. Every little detail they can do to make the X more efficient, they will also add into the Model S.�
May 16, 2015
cantdecide I agree with David.
The S has a very low Cd already compared to other cars. Tesla went to a lot of effort and expense to get it that low. For example the door handles which save a little drag for a fair bit of cost and maintenance. Other things they did include the small rear view mirrors, the nosecone shape, the low slant on the rear and more... Overall highly optimized for low drag.
For the X Tesla tried to lower a little bit further, perhaps one percent, by removing the rearview mirrors. If they are doing that then that is further evidence they don't have many more ideas to cheaply improve aerodynamic losses. Furthermore the X looks aerodynamically similar to the S.
My conclusion is that the Cd of the X should be similar to S (barring the effect of the squarer front shape) and applied to a larger surface area should mean 20% more energy is needed aerodynamically.
For the freeway the aerodynamic energy dominates the costs, suggesting that for the highway the car should get 20% less freeway range than the SxD for the same battery.�
May 17, 2015
marcon I think many of us speculate from a demand perspective. I agree, that longer range would open a larger potential market for the Model S and Model X and it will be offered at some point. I also agree that people would pay good money for a larger battery pack with more range.
From a supply perspective there are several constraints:
1) Tesla is aggressively reducing possible optioning variants of the Model S to streamline manufacturing due to being supply constrained, in contrast to say Porsche, where e.g. you can mix your own individual colour. The Tesla Model S and X are built on the exact same skateboard platform, including battery layout: the Generation II platform. That is, why releasing the dual drive Model S before introducing the Model X made a lot of sense, production wise.
The space in the Model S 85kWh battery is completely maxed out. Lower capacity batteries have the same size, but do not have as many cell banks inside. Developing a completely different battery layout to sell 15-20 kWh larger batteries, would reduce commonality of parts between Model S and X.
Unless Tesla changes the battery chemistry, there will not be a larger capacity battery pack.
Furthermore, Tesla is battery supply restrained. With 1190kWh worth of cells, they can manufacture 14x 85kWh or 17x 70kWh batteries. The 70D was very likely introduced as a platform for an entry level Model X70D, making it comparable to a S60 in range and keeping comonality with the Model S.
2) Panasonic released a 3400mAh battery in 2012. They have released a 3600mAh battery since. To use the higher capacity, Tesla would need to thoroughly test the newer batteries and make possible modification in software and hardware. Is a 1/17 = 6% increase in battery size, resulting in a 90kWh highest capacity, worth that development cost to Tesla? Unless they roll that new cell chemistry out to all models they have to keep up two differnet production lines.
Considering that Panasonic might have to partially retool their production lines, currenty producing for Tesla, the production disruption and resulting amortisation costs rolled into the cell prices from Panasonic, even if low, also have to be taken into account.
The newer chemistry might also be different in how it can handle high charge and discharge levels. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the difference between chemistries and physical microstructures of those two cells might offer more information. But it means that changing to that newer cell might not be as trivial as just putting in a higher power version. (Would they be the same cells as in the 7kWh powerwall, designed for daily discharge? Does anyone know, which ones those use?)
Nevertheless, I expect no across the board change in battery chemistry until a two digit percentage improvement in energy density and/or significant manufacturing cost improvements materialise. It is very likely that the gigafactory will manufacture cells with just such a new chemistry.
3) Sales. E.g. Apple is a great example of a company releasing a continuously improved version of their products year on year (sorry, Mac Pro), enticing people to upgrade. How many people upgraded to the top trim P85D or at least a 85D, when it became available? At least from a traditional sales perspective, it won't hurt Tesla badly to offer larger capacity Model S and Model X in 1-3 years only, when technology has improved. This can also be seen in Teslas attitude to refuse S60 to S85 battery upgrades, so far. (Is even battery swap for the S60 confirmed, yet?)�
May 17, 2015
wk057 *digital handshakes all around*
I can't see the Model X *not* having a range/efficiency penalty vs the Model S. It's a SUV-ish vehicle. There isn't an SUV out that has higher efficiency than it's sedan counterpart (that I know of), and IMO that's the trade off you live with making such a purchase decision.
While I believe that eventually both the S and X will be offered with better battery packs, it won't be available in the first production Model X vehicles.�
May 18, 2015
chriSharek Panu, my son (who inherits my Volt) doesn't turn 16 until December. It would be kind of dumb to have 3 cars for only 2 drivers in the household. But, just last night, the wife said I could take delivery September 1, instead of November, so .... I'll order on my birthday in 5 days and have it here before our Drive Electric Week event that I've been organizing for the past 5 years!�
May 18, 2015
blackscraper I am sorry I did not state clearly what I wanted to. after 4 hours, I generally would to have a prolonged break. that is when the car can have a longer charge. but model s can not drive 4 hours straight on highway thus I have to accommodate the car. I'd like a car which can accommodate me. for shorter inter city trips, such shortcoming becomes rather bothersome. for longer road trips, bigger battery means you can have less charge stops and charge at a higher rate too, which in turn,leads to a quicker road trip time. very few people regularly take meals at an interval of less than 3 hours.�
May 18, 2015
AmpedRealtor I only included the 70 because Musk was quoted as saying the entry-level X would get the 70D battery pack. I don't have a link or citation, but it was made in the last couple of months, perhaps during the last quarterly call? Not sure.�
May 19, 2015
mgboyes Erm, they already did that. It's called the P85D and its EPA range is 253 miles. I hear they're selling quite a lot of them.�
May 20, 2015
3mp_kwh 70 / 105. Saying that, with a look at where these arrows point:
-Range is king. Witness 40, 60 and the trend.
-$/kwh cost drop, to <$250, meaning $5,000 to offer ~40-50more range
-Tesla may be costing into production, at $250/kwh in '16, but may be realizing significantly better economies by end of year (GF).
-Insufficient "top tier" 85kwh performance, which net of area, Cd, and weight, would be anchored below ~250 rated
-Tesla buyers, and more "range" oriented people realizing faster pre-taper supercharging times (maybe 130 miles, in under 20 minutes). This comes with higher kwh.
-Higher SUV range expectations
-Being down to two battery options, 15kwh apart, makes no sense
I'd be speculating even worse, to suggest there's an economic way to add to the pack, along their assembly process. Barring excessive costs, I think we see >=100kwh this year. Cripes', look at how Cadillac wedged all 18kwh of the Volt's pack, in their upcoming CT6. It's possible. Tesla knows their customer wants it.�
May 20, 2015
wk057 So far the supercharging voltages I've seen posted for the 70D suggest exactly what I had hypothesized when it was announced: 14 modules the same as in the 85 kWh pack (which has 16 modules) laid out like the modules in the 60 pack. Eliminates an entire part from production (the 60 type modules).
Nothing suggests a better cell chemistry in the 70D pack. A better cell with higher energy density by weight would be needed to get a higher capacity pack in the same form factor. You can't just add cells and weight and expect range to increase proportionally. A 105kWh pack with existing would need four more 85-kWh type modules somewhere, a weight increase of at least 25%. That weight is a range penalty even if they could find a place to physically cram it, making the car less efficient with only slightly more maximum range.
All of that said, I still am holding firm that we wont see a 100/105 pack in the near term (ie, for Model X)�
May 20, 2015
3mp_kwh Glad you're sticking to your guns, but care to offer what you mean by "slightly more maximum range"? At 25% more weight, I am a little rough on 85kwh pack stats but if we call that 25% 300lbs we aren't talking about a big change in the car's inertia. When we talk about "maximum range", we also aren't talking about EPA AER, MPGe City, or MPGe Highway. Those last three are all test cycles that feature accelerations. When steady on the interstate, I bet the mile per kwh gains of and extra 20kwh would still come closer to 3 miles each, than 2 (333Wh/mi vs. 500Wh/mi). No? That's where I came up with adding ~40-50 miles minimum. When you figure the i3 gets rated for ~87, on ~22kwh, we're already building in almost half the efficiency. Unless I am missing something, I think this sounds conservative.�
May 21, 2015
scott jones I AGREE... adding a few hundred pounds, BUT a 25% bigger battery would mean 40 miles better range, not Slightly better. The weight, especially "at speed" wouldn't negate the far bigger battery. And yes, they can figure out a way to make it work. They certainly are not waiting for the giga factory to be up and running to offer a bigger battery.�
May 21, 2015
wk057 I guess we have differing opinions on how much additional range is significant.
Honestly, ~250 miles is sufficient for 99% of use cases. Adding 40 more miles isn't going to change that. Adding 40 miles wouldn't even change the supercharger stops I needed on my frequent ~600 mile trip. Range would essentially need to be doubled to make any impact on the long trip's I've made so far, and the other 99% of the time I'd be lugging around a ton of underutilized capacity.
We're not talking about just adding a bit of weight and presto, more range. We're talking about redesigning the pack completely. They can't just throw four more modules in series with the existing 16 of the 85 pack to make a 105 pack. That would bump the pack voltage up near 500V! So, they'd have to configure it differently to work with the existing inverters/motors/chargers/DC-DC/etc, which work up to around 420VDC IIRC. There is no easy way to do this, not without adding complexity to production which Tesla has been adamant about reducing for efficiency gains.
To add 20kWh would be four more 85-style modules (444 cells each). Keeping the modules the same, let's say they split the 20 needed for a 105kWh pack in half to parallel half of them to keep the voltage lower. Well, then we're only working with nominal voltages that are 30% lower than the 60/70 packs, something like 220VDC. That's no good, motors wont move. And they can't do things asymmetrically because the pack won't charge/discharge evenly.
Let's say they redesigned the modules themselves to fix this voltage issue by doing 5 groups of ~88 cells in parallel per module instead of 6 of 74, then put 20 modules in series so we kept the voltage reasonable while adding capacity. Well, that's a complete module redesign, a complete BMS/BMB redesign, a redesign of the module's bus plates/fusing (higher current per group/module due to lower voltage per module), etc. Then, on top of that we now have 20 modules/~8900 cells instead of 16 modules/~7100 cells to cool. There goes a redesign of the cooling loop, fire arrest/protection setup, cell venting ducts/valve placement, etc. Can the existing components outside of the pack handle the cooling needs fo 4 additional modules? Need to verify that capability, possibly redesign, etc. Plus many more details to be addressed.
This is all non-trivial stuff, guys, for very little real gain. It would make *far* more sense to stick with the existing design, tweak it slightly when a better cell is utilized, and make a slightly higher capacity pack that way instead of doing a complete redesign for a small gain... something I really don't see happening in quantity until the gigafactory is online, among other reasons.�
May 22, 2015
sandpiper With all respect, the gain may be trivial to many but certainly not to me or to the other owners in this area. In the winter, the run to my closest supercharger simply isn't doable, even with range mode on, 10-15 kmh under the limit, freezing feet and defrost on and off as required to keep a frost free hole so that I can see the road. That supercharger gets me access to pretty much everywhere I regularly travel to. If I could get a real 250 miles that would be different but in the winters up here it's simply not so, or even close.
Adding 20% would make a BIG difference. It would also allow for faster supercharging in cases when you don't need the full range. I hate having to charge to 100% but often enough there really is no option.
Adding 20% may well be technically non-trivial and it may not happen until the GF opens. But that doesn't negate the need.�
May 22, 2015
blackscraper I will second Sandpiper on this. 250miles is under quite good road conditions, it could be slashed to under 180miles under freezing winter thus making Model S an expensive but impractical toy which was designed to be a daily commuting car.�
May 22, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel Most likely they will not change the configuration of the packs. I suspect they will swap out the cells to get thr capacity gain. This is the path of least risk to the new pack in terms of engineering, testing, etc.
Still my take is thr 70KWh pack might stay, but the 85KWh has seen its days. We will see all the 85Kwh packs retired by the release of the model x or shortly after. The replacement will have higher capacity Whatever the capacity that will be. By then the 85D will see a proce cut for the inventory vehicles. Hopefully this is when i jump i. To snag a low priced inventory 85D.�
May 22, 2015
wk057 We'll agree to disagree I suppose. On my very first long trip with the Model S I drove in an ice storm between two superchargers at ~210 miles apart. Temperatures in the 20s with wind, ice, and snow. Left with nearly a full charge and I arrived at the destination supercharger with ~12 miles remaining. The supercharger handle was literally frozen to the pedestal and required some finesse to remove and clean the ice from it. The car still supercharged at near normal rates, too, since the pack was already warmer from the drive. Suffice it to say, I was more than impressed with the car at this point from multiple view points including cold weather range, handling, etc.
Keep in mind that pack size isn't the only limitation when supercharging. The supercharger could not safely output 120kW continuously, even if the pack could handle it, without upping wire sizes. Tesla is already beyond what I personally would consider a safe wire size for the power they're pushing, but the taper allows it because by the time the wiring heats up due to high amperage/resistance the power level is already dropping. They might be able to squeeze a bit more out of that from a technical standpoint... until someone burns their hand on a supercharger connector that's super hot from high current. They already are very hot in the peak power points of a charge, with the connector reaching 129F in my FLIR shots last summer on a ~75F night after only 20 minutes at less than peak power.
From a technical point of view, redesigning the pack to add 20% capacity with existing cells would just be silly when very soon (I'd guess within ~24 months) they'll just be able to reuse that design with better cells.�
May 22, 2015
blackscraper Well, let's try out in -20C weather which has been common during Jan and Feb 2015. most of Model S owners in southern Ontario whom I know reported less than 60% of the rated range while traveling on highway 401 during that time. headwind, awful road condition, freezing temperature, 110km/hr made a trip from Toronto Supercharger to Kingston supercharger quite a stretch for 85KWH owners. This has been quite common during the past Jan and Feb. I can understand Sandpiper's frustration on winter range as other owners told me the horrible range during freezing winter made Model S almost impractical for a short inter-city trip.�
May 22, 2015
sandpiper Bingo. My closest SC is 300km away. In February this year at -25C, there was zero chance even travelling at 80-90 km/hr. At warmer temps of 20+ degrees F it may have been very possible. Supercharging speed has never been an issue. And pushing more than 300 amps through that cable would be a bad idea.�
May 22, 2015
David99 I think wk057 makes a very valid point. There is a lot of changes necessary to get 20% more capacity that would not be worthwhile. The current battery pack size simply doesn't have the space to fit in more cells. The only practical solution would be to use higher capacity cells.
There are always cases where the 20% difference is just at the tipping point for a certain person that makes or breaks it. But if we have 20% more, there are just as many Model S owners that are just too far to reach their Supercharger or desired destination. My point is, there will always be cases where, no matter what capacity, for whom it just isn't enough.
There is a reason why Tesla went with 85 kW. It more than covers the daily needs of the vast majority of drivers and it allows long distance traveling at a decent drive/charge ratio. Elon was asked about a higher capacity batter/car and he said they can make a car that goes 1000 miles but it would be a car that no one buys. It would be too expensive, too heavy and impractical as you drive around a huge amount of battery that you don't need in the majority of your driving. It would be a burden.
Maybe they will have a slightly higher capacity pack for the Model X that is based on better cells. A redesign of the battery pack will definitely be necessary once they switch to the slightly larger cells coming from the Giga factory. But that's still sime time in the future�
May 22, 2015
blackscraper @David99, IMHO, Tesla engineers have a mindset of "California" where it is quite populous, close to everything, and where there is mild weather. No wonder why Bjorn advocated 110KWH pack in his video although he is quite a Tesla fan, proud owner and lives in populous Europe but has a comparatively harsh winter and unlimited speed autobahn�
May 22, 2015
Joe T I'd imagine that more Superchargers (perhaps lots more) might be the better answer to the range issues being discussed. Potentially cheaper than some of the re-designs that would be necessary for the increased capacity, and might be necessary anyway as ownership levels rise.�
May 22, 2015
stopcrazypp At the current moment, using the same amount of cells, they can make a 90kWh pack by swapping the 3400mAh cells for 3600mAh ones. That hardly seems worthwhile. They would need 4000mAh cells with the same cell voltage in order to get to 100kWh. However, Panasonic's 4000mAh cells (which had a lower 3.4V nominal voltage, so energy equivalence is more like a 3800mAh cell) have been delayed since 2013 (predicted release announced in 2009) with no public release date at the moment.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to add more cells because it would require a change in the battery architecture, which doesn't make sense at the current point in the Model S/X platform life-cycle.�
May 23, 2015
Kbsilver I'm all for more capacity as long as there is no weight penalty. With more superchargers (which are being added all the time), the need for increased capacity becomes less important. Most of the time extra capacity is being hauled around and is not used or needed. The only downside of less capacity but more superchargers is time spent charging. For trips one or more of the charging stops may not be needed. Also less on board capacity reduces vehicle weight and cost. There is no perfect solution.
I am not an owner (yet) but do look at a 350 mile trip I take several times per year. The optimum supercharger midway of the trip is undersized (at Bethesda-Montgomery Mall) and usually has a wait (hard to sell to the SO that the 5.5 hour trip in an ICE will take 8 hours in a Tesla). An 85 will most likely make it with one charge stop, with just enough reserve if I have to use an alternate charging location. However with a 70, unless I am guaranteed that limited midpoint Supercharger is available, I need to make 2 charging stops.�
May 23, 2015
wk057 I've done many trips from NJ to NC.
Yeah, Bethesda is definitely the worst supercharging spot I've ever seen. I went there one time, just to check it out. Never, ever, never never never will I go to that location again. I wish I could delete that charger from the list. It probably took me longer to get from the highway to the charger and back than it did for me to charge there. Only 2 stalls in a busy parking garage. Tesla store has vehicles there that may or may not be charging, so potentially only one customer stall available during the day. Completely pointless location.
So, personally, I would suggest not counting on Bethesda.
Woodbridge, VA is OK. It's a little more off the highway than I'd prefer, and during busy traffic hours that's not much fun. But at least it's 8 stalls and in a location unlikely to be ICEd. Probably south of where you want to go from NJ since you're considering Bethesda.
Newark, DE is usually pretty good these days. Only 4 stalls, but a lot of people who used to need to charge there to make it to Glen Allen, VA tend to skip it now it seems. I rarely see other Model S there. Odd because I find that location to be one of the most convenient, literally in the middle of the highway virtually zero miles out of the way.
Hamilton, NJ is probably too close for you to really make work, but you could almost definitely make Hamilton, NJ to Woodbridge, VA nonstop in an a 70 with 100% charge. Definitely in an 85. The I-95 traffic jams actually come in handy for increasing range... lol.
Overall, the superchargers make the travel experience pretty pleasant and I definitely prefer them to quick, expensive, and smelly gas pumping stops.�
May 23, 2015
David99 I think the key to enable longer trips really is having many more charging stations. It will take a long time before we can double battery capacity at the same size and weight. It's a future technology that will take time. The technology for Superchargers or other DC fast chargers is already well established. The grid is existent pretty much everywhere. The only reason we feel the need to have a larger battery is because there are way too few fast charging stations.
Here is an ICE analogy. Most ICE cars have an average range of 400 miles. But unlike EV that are topped off every night, we let the tank go down until it's close to empty and then hit a gas station. So on average, we drive around with about half a tank. That's exactly the range of the Model S. Why is it OK for the ICE car but not for the EV? Because there are gas stations almost everywhere. We don't have to worry about range, we just start driving and then fill up on the way. If we have a decent amount of fast DC chargers and Superchargers, we would be just as confident with the range we have right now, because it really doesn't matter. We just charge on the way.�
May 23, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel Right, but filling up a ICE car is much much faster. It usually takes me 5 minutes MAX to fill up my ICE car which has 300+ miles range on the highway if I am in a hurry. If you do that math, this is like charging at 3600 miles per hour. The Tesla can do 170 miles in 30 minutes. Or best case, 340 miles per hour. So as you can see, even using the Supercharging station, it is still 1/10 of the rate you can put back compared to ICE.
Now I am not saying we should stride to match gasoline fill up rate. But Tesla should at least stride to sustain the 170 miles in 30 minutes rate until we are actually near full. With this solution I agree having more supercharging stations will negate the need for bigger capacity battery. However given the max rate now and sometime for the foreseeable future, I would say we need large capacity battery because the longer I drive, the longer I am willing to rest and wait for the battery to charge up. Moreover, with bigger capacity batteries, hopefully the supercharging station can sustain the higher rate charging for much longer, essentially allowing the bigger capacity battery to gain more range faster compared to lower capacity battery as proven when comparing the 60KWh vs the 85KWh version.
Some here have claimed it is the wire heating up that slows the charging down, not the battery. But I would disagree. It is essentially the limitation of the battery that prevents the sustained high rate of charging. We see it clearly on the 60KWh and 85KWh supercharging comparison. The Amps taper off much faster on the 60KWh compared to the 85KWh. Hence it's not the wires heating up faster on the 60KWh that causes the slow down, it is the lower capacity battery. I believe, tesla chose this rate because it can damage the battery if the high rate of charging is sustain until near full capacity.�
May 23, 2015
David99 No doubt, larger batteries have many advantages, including longer range, fast charging, longer life. We all want larger capacity batteries, no one disagrees on that. I wasn't trying to argue against it, but the current technology sets a hard limit that will take many years to push to a significant amount. Doubling capacity at the same size and cost will take a while before it becomes mass produced. In the mean time charging stations can solve the problem to a great degree. And they could be built very quickly. One way or another, we need them. There will me many many more EVs on the streets.�
May 23, 2015
Kbsilver In most cases charging limitation is battery protection. I believe battery protection is a primary goal and one of the more unique elements of the Tesla design.
For me Hamilton is already near my house and does not help. If I must avoid Bethesda then it's definitely 2 stops with a 70. (Newark DE & Woodbridge VA). The 222 miles from my house to Woodbridge under most conditions would be doable in an 85, but cutting it too close for a 70. My final destination is Charlottesville VA which requires using back roads to cut west if visiting the Woodbridge surpercharger. A supercharger on 95 in the Baltimore area (there are plenty of rest areas) would be perfect for me.
The ICE we use now for this trip is a BMW 335D (diesel). I still have 1/2 tank when I get there (340 miles).�
May 23, 2015
stopcrazypp It's both. The 60kWh has the bottleneck at the battery (the lower voltage gives it a proportionally lower power), but I would not be surprised 85kWh has it at the wires (at least for the peak power).
From the post here, they are pushing [email�protected] when charging at 120kW through wires at are 2 AWG. The 135kW chargers would be 375A. They are already pushing 2-3x what NEC would recommend through such wires. And at the start of the charge the current will actually be even higher since the voltage is lower.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/30259-Maximum-power-for-supercharging-Tesla-Model-S/page2?p=638680&viewfull=1#post638680�
May 25, 2015
wk057 Yeah, the limitation is not the just batteries. There is absolutely no way the supercharger could sustain the peak charge rate for too much longer than it does without overheating the wiring of the supercharger connector and/or the wiring in the car. The connector just couldn't handle it. As I've previously mentioned, the handle already gets super hot really fast, but the taper keeps it from melting down.�
May 25, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel If that is the case, I think Tesla should start considering larger cables inside the car for charging or maybe 2 ports and 2x the wires they are using now. So if someone is really in a hurry and no other tesla around, then they can plug in 2 plugs and charge 2x as fast, provided the batteries can handle it.�
May 25, 2015
wk057 It's not just the cables in the car. It's the cables on the supercharger, the connector on the supercharger side, and the charge port on the car, and all the wiring in between (including probably the quick disconnect used for the battery pack itself) that would all need to be updated. No small task with thousands of cars on the road and thousands of supercharger stalls already.�
May 26, 2015
Cottonwood The wiring from the Supercharger Cabinet to the Pedestal is large enough per NEC to carry the 330 Amp current as labeled on the Supercharger Cabinet. The NEC is pretty conservative. Just like the wiring inside the car, the UMC, and the HPWC, the wires in the cable of the Supercharger Pedestal are smaller than the NEC requires, but as I understand it, the NEC does not apply inside these devices.
I have used many Superchargers with the current at 330 to 250 Amps. I have found the cable and the connector to be slightly warm during these charge sessions, they have not been what I would call hot. While a 105 kWh battery would probably stay at peak current for about 20% longer, and then taper 20% slower (always charging faster than a smaller battery in mph). My bet is that the wiring is large enough for 330 Amps continuous, and certainly large enough for the 20% longer charging.
That being said, I gut feeling is that it will be a couple of years before we see a battery larger than 85 kWh.�
May 26, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel For the older cars, no updates.
For the newer cars, put in another charge port. Making it have 2 charge port and users can plug either on in. Now making the change at the supercharging station so they can actually charge faster might be difficult. I.e. none of the 1A 1B slots But just full power charge port seperate to each.
IMO, it should be natural tesla to put another charge port on the other end of the car so users can plug however they want and charge. And like i said before, if supercharging stations stalls are empty, then users can double supercharge by plugging in both ports to get faster charge provided the batteries can handle the charge rate.�
May 26, 2015
wk057 Was anyone else going to take me up on the $100 to charity bet that the largest pack announced at the Model X initial release will be 85 kWh?
I'm fairly confident in this, so happy to raise a few bucks for a local charity.�
May 26, 2015
FlasherZ Just a quick note: remember the internal wiring of the supercharger system isn't necessarily subject to NEC rules. Consider the HPWC, which uses #6 conductors rated 105 degC to supply 80A to the car.
wk, what's your charity? I'll keep the checkbook warmed up just in case.�
May 26, 2015
wk057 Not suggesting the NEC has authority over it, just as a general guideline it makes sense still.
As for the charity, I tend to donate around a couple thousand per year to my local volunteer fire department, even when I wasn't living in the area.�
May 26, 2015
FlasherZ I guess we should establish the ground rules for the bet. If I lose, do I donate to your charity or mine?�
May 26, 2015
wk057 Historically the charity supported by the winner would get the spoils. Since regardless of who wins a good cause will get some support, I'm fine either way.�
May 26, 2015
FlasherZ Then I shall consider your fire department the payee should I lose - of course, I won't.�
May 26, 2015
3mp_kwh I like your reasoning, about the car's internal hardware challenges if going beyond 85kwh. It leaves higher MAH cells looking more likely, than simply more cells. In which case, gains would be incremental. What miliamp hour jump is available in 18650 format?
Tesla could get around the infrastructure issues, by coding a different taper into the larger battery cars. Imagine, then we'd have a '100D charge rate needs an asterisk' thread :tongue:�
May 27, 2015
scott jones My charity is Multiple Sclerosis. My mom and aunt have it.
And you are going to lose�
May 27, 2015
schonelucht If (and I agree with wk-57 here) they ever come out with a bigger capacity there is, in my opinion, 0 (Zero) % chance that Tesla will offer upgrades for existing model S's. They'll just have you buy a new car, just as they do with the dual motors, with 60->70, with autopilot or really with any additional hardware functionality beyond the most trivial.�
May 27, 2015
Johann Koeber Wishful thinking:
- it is the same skateboard
- battery swap is possible (Harris Ranch)
- software of the car should not be a big problem
- some people would be willing to pay
- it does not need modified hardware in the car (like the Autopilot update did)
So ... why not?�
May 27, 2015
No2DinosaurFuel From a business standpoint, I agree, but I don't think Tesla is that type of company who would stick it to their customer like some companies out there who shall remain nameless. I think tesla will at some point provide the upgrade at a cost. We have an example already. Look no further than the Roadster. Keep in mind, the Roadster probably have a more difficult battery to replace and Musk said they are offering a refresh to those old roadsters. With battery swapping, I don't think it will be difficult or costly for tesla to replace batteries for the model S.�
May 27, 2015
HankLloydRight I agree.... for every 85kWh owner who upgrades to the next level, Tesla could turn around and sell that "refurbed" 85kWh pack to a 60kWh owner wanting to upgrade to 85kWh. Very little labor, and lots of profit.
What Tesla does with the discarded 60kWh packs? Who knows. Prob too much labor to open up to salvage the individual cells or cell packs.�
May 27, 2015
Twiglett I thought that one of the stated aims of the gigafactory was to recycle packs.�
May 28, 2015
schonelucht Walk into a Tesla shop today and ask if you can upgrade your 60/70 to an 85 right now. You will get no for an answer. Same reason. It's easier and more profitable to just sell you a new car and take your old one back in the CPO program.�
Jul 17, 2015
wk057 Well dang, guess I should have been more specific to the topic of the thread and said it won't launch with a 100 or 105 kWh pack.
*nods to winners*
Shoot me info for your respective charities when you get a moment and I'll send out their spoils.�
Jul 19, 2015
scott jones Any Multiple Sclerosis charity, (Local or national) of your choice!�
Jul 19, 2015
wk057 Actually one of the charities I donate to normally.
Now I just need FlasherZ's�
Jul 19, 2015
FlasherZ Either Special Olympics Illinois (Special Olympics Illinois) or Autism Speaks (Home | Autism Speaks). I very much appreciate it and you're a great sport.
(I was on an Internet-free camping weekend, but heard a news blurb... I'd rather see it be bigger than 90, but at least we know they're shooting for the same range as the S...)�
Jul 19, 2015
ICUDoc Quality work, wk057.�
Jul 20, 2015
wk057 Done!
Until next time!�
Jul 20, 2015
scott jones . Thank you sir!�
Jul 20, 2015
FlasherZ Indeed. Thank you, from me, my son and the 11,000+ other athletes that benefit from the work of Special Olympics in Illinois.�
Oct 9, 2015
SmartElectric Close...�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét