New Battery Range & Pack Architecture [Announced at Battery Day]

[Crissa]

You make a lot of assumptions ...

You sure need to read your own posts. Clearly you're not reading mine. $250 would have barely covered the fuel cost for one leg of our road trip last year to BC if we took a truck. Sixteen hours driving, but it never is just sixteen hours. And yeah, we didn't stop 'cept for gas and bio. I do know how it goes.

And I know you're not being honest with yourself.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[shaneaus]

You sure need to read your own posts. Clearly you're not reading mine. $250 would have barely covered the fuel cost for one leg of our road trip last year to BC if we took a truck. Sixteen hours driving, but it never is just sixteen hours. And yeah, we didn't stop 'cept for gas and bio. I do know how it goes.

And I know you're not being honest with yourself.

-Crissa

As I requested - please don't reply to me. Again, making assumptions (fuel costs are wildly different in various parts of the country). Again, you didn't read my comments - I had adjusted to 14 hrs for the trip. 13 driving and a 1 hr break to eat a meal. The rest of the trip we don't get out of the truck except to pump fuel or pee - period! Just because YOU can't conceive of that being the reality doesn't mean it isn't true.

And "And I know you're not being honest with yourself." is basically calling me a liar.

I'm going to be the adult here and unsubscribe from this thread.

For the several persons who didn't attempt to make statements implying that I don't knew what I'm talking about, that I'm not being truthful about how my travertine are conducted, and don't keep repeating the same thing over and over again without adding anything new to the discussion - I thank you. And, I apologize for allowing this unproductive discussion between Crissa and I to derail constructive conversation.

 

[shaneaus]

Apologies, LUKE. I had missed your reply.

My comments have not been meant to discourage ANYONE from the CT. And, I'm still going to get and enjoy mine.

My comments are directed towards the people who keep coming out and saying "longer range isn't needed." It might not be needed for people like you and Crissa - but, that didn't mean that OTHER people might need more range capacity.

By continuing to proclaim "more range isn't needed" regardless of others advising they need more range the people making those statements are sending a message to companies discouraging them from adding additional range. Likely, this is fine for a passenger car. But, for the many Americans who use their trucks as work AND passenger vehicles range IS important. Frequently, there will be 3-5 passengers, there will be equipment in the truck, they will be hauling product, a trailer, or some other heavy load. They will have time constraints that don't allow them to stop in the middle of the day to charge the truck because that is time that are paying man-hrs to wait around for them.

In this context everyone in the EV TRUCK community should be clamoring for MORE range! This support a wider adoption of the vehicle as a valid work truck - which has many benefits.

I am very much looking forward to my CT and showing it off to my ICE truck driving friends!

But, more range IS needed for the CT. That has been the point of my comments. Apologies, that I wasn't more clear on that aspect.

Again, once I check my alerts and make appropriate responses I'll unsubscribe from this thread.

 

[shaneaus]

he announcement of the new charging station in California with the "CT stalls" is most interesting in that if you count the number of stalls and the number of chargers to be installed there is a mismatch - at least one extra. Is one of these stalls to be equipped with two?

I watch a LOT of YouTube visits on Tesla goings on. The evaluation of the new charging site's extra charger was for a handicapped vehicle space. It would make it easier for a handicapped person to charge their vehicle.

Regarding splitting the batteries in a CT for faster charging - so far, that is all speculation with not even a rumor that might be the case. The same with being able to use a semi-charger. And, most semi chargers will be along major highways due to the use case for the customers for which Tesla has contracts. Not bad - but, not productive for many small business use cases for the CT.

From what I've watched and read... I just don't see Tesla installing chargers with higher charge capacity just for the CT. Hopefully!!! When Tesla can later convert the rest of the lineup to the new battery tech Tesla will begin converting the lower cap chargers - but, I don't see that happening for another 5-7 years. Just no perceived need on EM's part - because, "we don't need more range." *sigh* But, one never knows EM has had many surprises up his sleeve!

 

[FutureBoy]

From what I've watched and read... I just don't see Tesla installing chargers with higher charge capacity just for the CT. Hopefully!!! When Tesla can later convert the rest of the lineup to the new battery tech Tesla will begin converting the lower cap chargers - but, I don't see that happening for another 5-7 years. Just no perceived need on EM's part - because, "we don't need more range." *sigh* But, one never knows EM has had many surprises up his sleeve!

Watch it be a software update to enable greater cap charging in all the chargers that have been installed in the last X years... Something like that up his sleeve?

 

[happy intruder]

Thank you, ajdelange, for such a great reply. If chargers were along my route and spaced as you describe that would likely work. An extra hour on a 1200 mile trip would work. But, an extra 2-4 hours to get to chargers and charge wouldn't.

But, (and it has been over a year since I checked) my most direct route is mostly 2 lane highways across Texas and into Colorado with very small towns and very little few miles on larger roads. There were very few chargers. Hopefully, this will change!! We didn't go this year and I didn't check - maybe, I'm wrong and it did change - just unlikely, as most towns along the trip don't rate a place to eat, most don't have a hotel, and many don't have anyplace that is open (not even a gas station) on the first 2/3rd of the trip!

Others mentioned dual charges for the CT at some stations - but, with all the people saying range doesn't matter past 300-400 miles I don't see those being installed. The last video I watched yesterday was regarding a permit filed in Cali for a new charging location with designated CT stalls.... The CT stalls were larger - but, had the exact same chargers as the other stalls (250).

As long as EV owners campaign that more range or more/faster charging isn't needed then it most likely won't happen. This is the biggest obstruction to the CT being seen as a serious construction and/or hot shot type work vehicle. If the range can eventually be pushed to 700 miles I think almost all of those concerns will fade away.

I'm still looking forward to my CT. I can't afford the tri-motor. It would be nice if Tesla offered a dual motor with the larger battery pack!

where is this new CT charging in California

 

[shaneaus]

where is this new CT charging in California

@10:30

 

[happy intruder]

@10:30

thanks but I dont have an hour to filter it out

 

[shaneaus]

thanks but I dont have an hour to filter it out

That was why I put the time stamp after the link. Start the video and go to 10 minutes and 30 seconds for that segment.

 

[happy intruder]

That was why I put the time stamp after the link. Start the video and go to 10 minutes and 30 seconds for that segment.

my bad.....didnt notice that...sorry and thank you

 

[Crissa]

Again, making assumptions (fuel costs are wildly different in various parts of the country).

...And skipping all the other costs consuming miles from a gasoline powered vehicle. And then you added an hour to eat, but no time to fill the gas or pee. All for a measly hour at the end. Who's not being honest with themselves?

Regarding splitting the batteries in a CT for faster charging - so far, that is all speculation

Yes. This is what they do for the Semi, though.

-Crissa

 

[shaneaus]

Yep! And, I totally get your point of view and your comment is very fair!

I don't BELIEVE I'll need more than 500 mile range regularly (IF I could afford the tri-motor - which I can't). The issue is that when I do imagine needing it - I don't want to have to borrow an ICE vehicle for that task.

I like the idea of a removable battery pack that two people could put into the back of a CT. It could be daisy chained with additional packs. They could have a port in the CT bed that allows for cooling/power. This would allow CT owners the option of getting additional range of of their truck as needed. I think that Tesla could easily design such a pack and that four of them could fit in the bed. If each pack provided about 150 miles of range.... That would totally address range issues! Not, only that - but, they could be removed when unneeded for better efficiency when driving locally! Up to 600 more miles! IDK - I have done zero math/research on the battery density/weight/size for such a thing!

And, I'm thankful for your not coming on here and trying to convince others that their need for more range is invalid.

I found an ignore button that allows me to ignore people who do that and still engage others!

 

[TI4Dan]

since the dual motor is first in line for production, if they have the new battery, could one assume that the tri-motor being second on the list will also have the new battery?

I believe all three variants of CT will have the 4680 cell, It will have the energy to cover the distance that Elon stated, plus it will charge much faster with tabless battery design. The tri-motor( I truly would love to own it) will definitely need this battery to be able to travel 500 miles and deliver the energy to the three motors. Excluding the semi, the tri-motor will be the heaviest
vehicle Tesla will build so far.

 

[Geo]

Its smart to reasonably understand what sort of range is suitable for one's self, and if "500 ish miles" is suitable, then so be it.

But be aware the EPA range is rarely reflective of real world range.
For instance straight off the top people aren't allowed to regularly fill their battery to 100% and its not encouraged to go below about 15% or so.

So your 500 miles may be a usable 350 miles (if 30% is regularly off limits)

And the EPA highway range is about 20% less than the EPA headline figure.

So your 350 miles may be reduced to 280 miles of highway range.

And actual efficiency due to real world externalities like terrain, traffic stop start, Ambient temp and heating and airconditioning, means actually, without any load carrying in the vehicle or towing,

Your 280 mile highway range is reduced by about 18% to 230 miles.

And if you were carrying 2 or 3 passengers with just a little gear, then
I'll leave it to you to estimate how much further that is reduced by.

And then how much more again if you were towing just a small trailer.

Your 500 mile nominal range will be reduced quite substantially in the real world.

Which is why Ford is going to offer the Electric F150 with a generator for the bed of the truck.
https://www.teslarati.com/ford-fights-tesla-cybertruck-with-f150-gas-generator/
"Like the battery pack, the generator may be operably connected to the electric machine through the inverter over the voltage bus. The generator may also be connected in either parallel or series relative to the battery pack,” Ford’s patent noted"


The following TFL video might be quite interesting to those who are unaware.



P.S. Those 4680 Batteries and the additional range they will bring will be very welcome.
But in Elon's own words, they hope to START seeing the benefits from the 4680 in 12-18 mths, and have the full scale benefits in about 3 yrs.
The interesting thing is, the Austin Factory looks like it will be ready to produce Cybertrucks as early as around June 2021.
So there's a likely issue with what batteries (and range) will be included when the first Cybertrucks are being delivered !

Sponsored