Performance with Battery Options...

[KenEE]

This may have been covered before, but I was wondering if the performance of the S was somehow made uniform with the three battery options?

If not, then there is a potential performance boost going with the smaller battery which must be 300-500lb's lighter than the 300 mile option.

If true, and assuming the 5.6 sec. 0-60 is with the big one, then 0-60 could come as fast as 4.9 with smallest battery option.

I can't find it now, but I want to say I read the S with 300mile battery was 4000lb. (at 4000lb, 300lb savings is worth about .4 sec)

So would anyone get the smaller pack to get the best performance?

Also, did anyone notice the battery swap time on the main page is now down to 1 minute? That's pretty fast. I'd have to see it to believe it. But still, such a quick swap should future proof the S.

Ken

[TEG]

I have wondered the same thing, but something else to consider is that motor power output could be limited in the smaller packs. I think they plan to offer higher power output than the Roadster, but that might be too much of a strain on the smaller size packs, so I could imagine that they might need to artificially power limit the motor on those models.

It might work out that they all end up with similar 0-60 performance, but the models with the bigger packs get to make more HP & Torque to compensate for the extra weight.

Time will tell.

[user497]

I wonder as well in a few years when Roadster owners start replacing their battery packs for lighter packs with more power if there will be a firmware change that will make the car perform even better. That may be a consolation to the cash we will need to pony up to buy the new pack.

[doug]

Hmm... I'm not so sure. I think with Roadster DT 1.5 at least, the power limit was the PEM and not the batteries.

Regarding the Model S, I was told the difference between the 160 mile and 230(?) mile trim levels was the number of cells. But that the 300 mile pack was using a higher capacity cell, although the same number as the 230. That was probably a year ago and obviously things can change in the 2 or so years before delivery.

[Iz]

But that the 300 mile pack was using a higher capacity cell, although the same number as the 230.

Kind of sucks to me. Does the cost difference between the 2.9 and 3.1 cells merit the potential price differences between a 230 and 300-mile pack?

[TEG]

Hmm... I'm not so sure. I think with Roadster DT 1.5 at least, the power limit was the PEM and not the batteries.

When I was thinking that the smaller pack ~could~ ~maybe~ limit power output, it wasn't so much thinking it would be an immediate sort of overheat limit like with the PEM or eMotor, but rather a longevity thing. For instance, it might be able to take 6C discharges for a while but then start losing capacity sooner than one would want. They probably have to design the max motor output with pack longevity in mind.