More 500-mile range rumors!

[BayouCityBob]

True re my percentage calculation errors. Thanks for the fix.

I drive over 30K miles per year, so it's only about 3 years until I see 9% battery degradation. At 183,000 miles my current S is down 11.35%, going by the car's range displayed on the screen. My battery degradation has only dropped about 2% after 100,000 miles so far.

Fair enough! Tesla is getting pretty good a dealing with cold weather - see the link below. BTW I agree completely with your overall point: 500 miles is totally sensible and definitely what I will buy if available. It makes it super fast as a road tripper, it gives lots of buffer for rural / low charging places, it means you can stick to the V4 stations, its got you covered when the battery degrades, etc. No such thing as too much range.

https://insideevs.com/news/650501/tesla-model-s-aces-winter-range-test-in-norway-beats-28-other-evs/

Sponsored

 

[SSonnentag]

Fair enough! Tesla is getting pretty good a dealing with cold weather - see the link below. BTW I agree completely with your overall point: 500 miles is totally sensible and definitely what I will buy if available. It makes it super fast as a road tripper, it gives lots of buffer for rural / low charging places, it means you can stick to the V4 stations, its got you covered when the battery degrades, etc. No such thing as too much range.

https://insideevs.com/news/650501/tesla-model-s-aces-winter-range-test-in-norway-beats-28-other-evs/

Interesting range of range differences among different Tesla models. The Y RWD dropped 26%. I'm hoping for the promised 500+ mile version so that I can drive to places my current 300 mile S doesn't let me go, such as driving south to north through Nevada and visiting relatives here in the White Mountains of Arizona where there are no nearby chargers. RV parks aren't my favorite sites to count on for charging in remote areas due to cost, availability and long charge times compared to Level 3.

 

[cvalue13]

Also, you do not lose 50% in bad weather, the Norway winter challenge the Model s lost 16% this year. Expect same from CT. Charging to 90% on a road trip is no big deal if you need it (you won't) which will give you an extra 38 miles (your assumptions) which would boost you to 306 miles between charges. You should not see 10% degradation until you hit 100,000 miles or so.

i dunno

there's a distinction to be made between what's observed on the dashboard, and what's realized in actual milage

and this discussion here appears to be conflating them

here's recurrent's data, note closely the x and y axis labels, and the difference between the solid and dotted lines

 

[Crissa]

equals 225 miles of comfortable road tripping range between charges.
That's 157 miles if starting with a 350 mile pack

So like, three hours of driving. On the second stretch after you already went four hours on the first charge from full.

In bad winter weather, I'd want to stop and stretch just to get out of it. And remember, in foul weather you're going slower, so you don't always use alot more per hour of driving. If it's just cold or windy, sure you won't get as far, but I wouldn't call that especially foul.

-Crissa

 

[SSonnentag]

So like, three hours of driving. On the second stretch after you already went four hours on the first charge from full.

In bad winter weather, I'd want to stop and stretch just to get out of it. And remember, in foul weather you're going slower, so you don't always use alot more per hour of driving. If it's just cold or windy, sure you won't get as far, but I wouldn't call that especially foul.

-Crissa

I completely agree. My argument for the 500+ miles is for occasional fringe cases, not a normal road trip. With less than 400 miles of range I am currently forced to burn gas (I don't own an ICE vehicle) or not go to my desired fringe case destination. Eventually there will be enough charging stations to make this a non-issue.

 

[Crissa]

I completely agree. My argument for the 500+ miles is for occasional fringe cases, not a normal road trip. With less than 400 miles of range I am currently forced to burn gas (I don't own an ICE vehicle) or not go to my desired fringe case destination. Eventually there will be enough charging stations to make this a non-issue.

Yeah, no, it was a great demonstration. But we also have to keep in mind just how far or how long that is, and it's pretty long!

-Crissa

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

two ways to answer that, at least

one: because if managing to get that battery in there balloons the necessary MSRP to a level that is untenable in the market, it’s a product that is DOA at the drawing board

two: the CT design only has a given amount of space in which to fit a structural pack. You don’t change the design to build essentially a second vehicle, from a structural perspective, I order to offer longer range. So you have your available space, and then you have the max amount of battery technology in KWh at a given time that can fit in that max space. That’s your ceiling. At least until the battery tech improves.

So you get to a certain point where you have your design, you have your max pack, and there you are. Build it at all, or don’t build it at all.

If that max pack size today is less than 500mi, then you don’t get a 500mi variant at launch.



There’s one alternative to this, but it seems unlikely at first blush given the unveil day aspirations. That the CT is designed for a bigger pack, but Tesla wants to not produce a 500mi version that could fit, structurally, at right now (but possible that ‘not ever’ is a feature here). In which case Tesla is throttling pack/range for such other purpose.

Best version of this scenario is that they want to deliver as many vehicles as possible as fast as possible, but are battery constrained. You’d rather sell [4 units w 120kWh packs] than, say, [2 units with 140kWh pack, plus 1 unit with a 200kWh pack].

Worst version is they want to stage model roll out over a year* to incentivize early CT owners to trade up to a then/releases higher range version.

In all events, there are plenty of business/engineering reasons why Tesla could possibly not (at least initially) offer a large pack variant, regardless if they could charge a per-unit premium for it.

The space is definitely the space, but Tesla has never designed any vehicle without a standard and long range variant, and given that they unveiled the CT with 3 range variants it is exceedingly difficult for me to believe that they have one space that cannot accommodate the number of cells they needed for their LR variant. Your comment that they might be intentionally limiting the number of cells in the pack, for the time being, makes complete sense though. If they want to sell a low-range tri-motor then that would be a new trim that they never spoke of before, but I could see them doing it. I wouldn't personally buy it, but maybe someone would. I will wait and hope that by the time my number comes up they do offer a 500-mile range that actually fills the battery pack with cells.

Regarding your first comment, I do not believe that is really true. I believe that CT buyers will decide what is tenable for price. Tesla has historically added and removed trims as it sees fit. They could add a tri-motor, 500-mile variant and see how many people try to order it, and if the numbers are "untenable" drop it. I do not think that anything is cast in stone.

I am also not of the belief that Tesla wants to make as many CTs as possible as quickly as possible. Even today Elon went on and on about cost and quality and was very clear that the number of CTs would follow the quality and cost profile. So neither number nor speed were even in anything he tallked about. Cost yes, quality yes.

If they are really building 4 new battery lines right now, and expect to have them ramped in the next 12 months (as they said), and they are ramping their current line(s) at 40% every quarter, by this time next year they should have plenty of 4680s. Not to mention that they will probably be on the next generation of 4680s by then since their cathode factory comes on line at the end of this year.

There is still hope in my mind.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I’d only add that there’s ALSO the possibility that Tesla has been serious about its post-2019 philosophical shift towards “the answer is not large packs that lay idol 95% of the time”

If they improve batteries to the point where we can charge/discharge 100% (or nearly so) then we get more of the stated range anyway, but if the battery design is good enough isn't it 'my' decision as to whether the battery is sitting idle? I actually prefer to charge once a week and drive 80 miles a day 6 days a week than to charge twice a week (or 3 times a week as I do now). It is all personal choice.

I made these same choices with ICE cars. A 420-mile range and I would fill up once a week. Why would I top off every day? I know that it is a different mindset when you can charge at home, but it is my choice how to do it. I do not like the idea of someone else telling me how to do it as long as I don't hurt anyone or screw up the ecology of the planet. In the end it is the same number of electrons that I am using.

 

[Crissa]

Why would I top off every day? I know that it is a different mindset when you can charge at home, but it is my choice how to do it. I do not like the idea of someone else telling me how to do it as long as I don't hurt anyone or screw up the ecology of the planet. In the end it is the same number of electrons that I am using.

Well...

1. Heavier vehicle uses more electrons per mile.
2. Heavier vehicle costs more up front.
3. Heavier vehicle goes through tires ever so more quickly (and/or needs more expensive tires).

Why would you top up at night?

1. Not having to remember or wait to charge later.
2. Using cheaper electrons during nighttime/cheapest hours.
3. Having that extra backup of electrons in an emergency.
4. Using electrons from the wall to precondition the vehicle for comfort and defrosting.
5. You could plug in every night in a year and still not use as much time as filling gas for the same miles in a 60mpg vehicle would've been.

Lots of reasons.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

isn't it 'my' decision as to whether the battery is sitting idle

at a production level, no, not really

because that level, of deciding how to allocate their resources, comes well before your choice of product to buy

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

at a production level, no, not really

because that level, of deciding how to allocate their resources, comes well before your choice of product to buy

Then they might as well put pedals in the car and not have any battery. Let’s be realistic here. They cannot sell a sedan that gets much less than 300 miles range. No one will buy it because they have a choice and they will exercise that choice. The same is true of trucks and they still have a choice. Tesla may claim that they don’t give a damn (I.e., demand is off the charts) but 40% of their reservations are for a 500-mile range truck. Ignore 400,000-800,00 buyers? I don’t think so.

 

[Crissa]

Then they might as well put pedals in the car and not have any battery. Let’s be realistic here. They cannot sell a sedan that gets much less than 300 miles range. No one will buy it because they have a choice and they will exercise that choice. The same is true of trucks and they still have a choice. Tesla may claim that they don’t give a damn (I.e., demand is off the charts) but 40% of their reservations are for a 500-mile range truck. Ignore 400,000-800,00 buyers? I don’t think so.

They did and do sell them. The LFP Model 3 is under 300 miles. There's no "can't" here. Leafs sell pretty well, and probably would sell better if they had the kind of battery warranty that Tesla does.

Who's saying they're going to ignore the Tri Motor orders?

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

Tesla may claim that they don’t give a damn (I.e., demand is off the charts) but 40% of their reservations are for a 500-mile range truck. Ignore 400,000-800,00 buyers? I don’t think so.

initially, one might recognize they had a choice of releasing these now, or not at all. which would ignore all reservation holders.

to ‘ignore’ only 400-800k would be a vast improvement.

then there’s the matter of whether they view it as ignoring all 400-800k. Some portion the might believe will still be happy on a net basis with the offering (and they price they offer it at). More others they may believe would have settled on a 300mi version still if they hadn’t had a 500mi version offered. And some others they may believe will come around to their pitch. And some others Tesla may feel, while not buying right now, will still be a customer for a future vehicle, including a future CT that solves the range issue.

those groups carved out, that leaves as a subset, in Tesla’s calculation, only those who were single-issue buyers, that were not merely choosing the highest/‘why not’ range, who are impervious to their pitch - and who on principle and spite in the future won’t still buy a future range-solved model.

somewhere we’ll south of 400-800k relevent to Teska’s calculation, and the remaining million-plus people happy (who they’ll still be selling to in two years, while they work other solutions).

as opposed to nobody: gets any CyberTruck for another year or two, because the few people who refuse to buy on principle.

Tesla’s decision there doesn’t seem that unreasonable, even if

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

initially, one might recognize they had a choice of releasing these now, or not at all. which would ignore all reservation holders.

to ‘ignore’ only 400-800k would be a vast improvement.

then there’s the matter of whether they view it as ignoring all 400-800k. Some portion the might believe will still be happy on a net basis with the offering (and they price they offer it at). More others they may believe would have settled on a 300mi version still if they hadn’t had a 500mi version offered. And some others they may believe will come around to their pitch. And some others Tesla may feel, while not buying right now, will still be a customer for a future vehicle, including a future CT that solves the range issue.

those groups carved out, that leaves as a subset, in Tesla’s calculation, only those who were single-issue buyers, that were not merely choosing the highest/‘why not’ range, who are impervious to their pitch - and who on principle and spite in the future won’t still buy a future range-solved model.

somewhere we’ll south of 400-800k relevent to Teska’s calculation, and the remaining million-plus people happy (who they’ll still be selling to in two years, while they work other solutions).

as opposed to nobody: gets any CyberTruck for another year or two, because the few people who refuse to buy on principle.

Tesla’s decision there doesn’t seem that unreasonable, even if

It’s all conjecture at this point. Your reasoning is sound, but your earlier comments of it being a production decision were different than these. You were suggesting to us all that we should consider the possibility of a 115 KWH pack and I was responding to that. I of course will wait and hope for a larger range LR trim. My decisions are never single-issue, but the top requirement here is range and I have already said why several times.

I of course have no idea how many tri-motor reservation holders will hold off hoping that Tesla will come through eventually, but neither does anyone else. All I ever did was to argue the case for a real LR trim, real being a lot more than the dual-motor (or non LR) trim has.

We really do not need to keep this up. I respect your reasoning but if I have to use ‘hopium’ then I will.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

They did and do sell them. The LFP Model 3 is under 300 miles. There's no "can't" here. Leafs sell pretty well, and probably would sell better if they had the kind of battery warranty that Tesla does.

Who's saying they're going to ignore the Tri Motor orders?

-Crissa

You ‘do’ realize that I said “much under”, right, and it was Elon that said Tesla was now targeting 300 miles as its baseline (albeit before they started focusing on LFP batteries). The industry has been catching up, so whereas 5 years ago Tesla pretty much owned the LR BEV market it doesn’t anymore. The same is true for trucks.

i didn’t say that Tesla is planning to ignore tri-motor reservation holders. How would I know? I was responding to this proposal, aggressively adhered to, that the maximum range Cybertruck will have an approximately 300-mile range, whether dual or tri motor (which we have been told will both be offered at launch), which would, at least for now, effectively abandon tri-motor LR reservation holders. All I need to hear is that the LR tri-motor will begin deliveries in the future and I am fine.

Sponsored