Disagree with Elon, 400 EPA miles is NOT enough

[JBT66]

Can we also have the epa start advertising the range after one year of use?
Some people are lucky but both the 3 and Ys I’ve have lost 25 to 30 miles off the epa range in that first year. Seem to stabilize after that but that means most of these cars lives they get only 90% of the advertised range.

 

[DelPhonic1]

I don't think you'll see Tesla do any batteries above 100kwh in the S and X, not in the first half of this decade anyway, not unless the new cells completely revolutionize the capabilities of EV's as we know them. They need to reduce their cell count per car, not increase it.

That's fine, just give me the 100kwh battery, and not the smaller pack because of the more efficient redesign of the 18650 in the refresh S/X because of the reduced overall weight. That should give us the extra miles to go well past 400...

 

[Richbot]

I think that is why everybody is so high on the 4680. The key thing is the weight of the packs vs capacity. The total amount of steel we are now carrying around with over seven thousand 1865s, will drop significantly with only a few hundred 4680. Also, a factor is the competition. As the other manufacturers increase their battery capacity/range, I suspect Tesla will attempt to stay in the lead, but not by too much. I would not expect Tesla to push to 500 miles until another manufacturer gets close to 400 with a compelling product. There is no doubt in my mind Tesla could do that today if it was necessary. But my belief is they are holding back for now (canceling the 520 mile Plaid+ for example).

I also wonder if they've completely punted on 4680 for anything but Cybertruck anytime soon, because they see that they need to make volume on Cybertruck to convince people. Truck people won't tolerate a trickle of 20 units per month with so many orders outstanding. They'll just buy a Ford.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

I also wonder if they've completely punted on 4680 for anything but Cybertruck anytime soon, because they see that they need to make volume on Cybertruck to convince people. Truck people won't tolerate a trickle of 20 units per month with so many orders outstanding. They'll just buy a Ford.

Those wanting to buy a Ford will be waiting a long time. Ford only planned to build 40,000 F150 Lightning per year by 2024. Now they've doubled it to 80,000 per year in 2024.

With 15k planned in 2022, 55k in 2023, 80k in 2024, and 160k in 2025, it will be 2025 before current reservation orders are filled.

 

[strider]

When the Plaid+ S was canceled, one reason Elon gave was anything over 400 miles doesn't matter. Elon said, “What we are seeing is that once you have a range above 400 miles, more range doesn’t really matter," he said. "There are essentially zero trips above 400 miles where the driver doesn’t need to stop for restroom, food, coffee, etc. anyway.”

I don't think Elon believes that - I believe he is talking his book. Because the 4680 cells are delayed, he is trying not to Osborne the current generation of vehicles that need to sell in order to pay for continued development of the 4680s.

I believe that the 4680s will be used by the CT, Semi, and (possibly) new Roadster. I think the other cars will stick w/ 2170s for the foreseeable future. Tesla invested a lot in those lines in Nevada and will want to amortize those as long as possible.

I find this thread amusing. It was not that long ago that everyone was complaining about not being able to drive from San Francisco to Portland. Now we are complaining about not being able to reach one of the most remote parts of the US in the bitter cold? In an MX no less, Tesla's least efficient vehicle. I am sorry, but you are just too early on the adoption curve for your particular situation.

In this case, it is way better for the environment if everyone that could use an EV just fine today would switch than it would be to build a 500-mile range car for the very small number of people that actually need that range. Large battery packs are heavy and require an insane amount of resources and energy to extract said resources from the ground and turn them into a battery pack. Further, you are dragging that huge battery pack around all the time, decreasing efficiency, when you don't actually need it all the time.

 

[DelPhonic1]

I find this thread amusing. It was not that long ago that everyone was complaining about not being able to drive from San Francisco to Portland. Now we are complaining about not being able to reach one of the most remote parts of the US in the bitter cold? In an MX no less, Tesla's least efficient vehicle. I am sorry, but you are just too early on the adoption curve for your particular situation.

In this case, it is way better for the environment if everyone that could use an EV just fine today would switch than it would be to build a 500-mile range car for the very small number of people that actually need that range. Large battery packs are heavy and require an insane amount of resources and energy to extract said resources from the ground and turn them into a battery pack. Further, you are dragging that huge battery pack around all the time, decreasing efficiency, when you don't actually need it all the time.

Aren't you carrying around a huge battery pack now? The Tri-motor Cybertruck is a 500 mile vehicle. Are you looking down on that vehicle too?

 

[strider]

Aren't you carrying around a huge battery pack now? The Tri-motor Cybertruck is a 500 mile vehicle. Are you looking down on that vehicle too?

I was tagging on to @nwdiver's post earlier in the thread. The OP has a charging problem, not a range problem.

People should be buying the smallest battery pack that will satisfy their needs. It is better for your wallet and the environment. The idea that Tesla should calculate the furthest distance between 2 charging points anywhere on earth, in the harshest conditions, in their least efficient vehicle, and then build a pack of that size, is silly and a waste of resources. It would be overkill for nearly everyone else.

Look, it's no different than buying a hemi for the once/year camping trip. The rest of the year you are dragging around a ton of extra weight.

If you can afford to buy it and to feed it, by my guest. But for the OP to imply that Tesla is impeding the future of EVs because they don't solve their extreme edge case is silly. Today's tech could easily cover 80% of all driving needs (probably more but I'm being conservative) and if we could get to that point it would be amazing.

 

[DelPhonic1]

I was tagging on to @nwdiver's post earlier in the thread. The OP has a charging problem, not a range problem.

People should be buying the smallest battery pack that will satisfy their needs. It is better for your wallet and the environment. The idea that Tesla should calculate the furthest distance between 2 charging points anywhere on earth, in the harshest conditions, in their least efficient vehicle, and then build a pack of that size, is silly and a waste of resources. It would be overkill for nearly everyone else.

Look, it's no different than buying a hemi for the once/year camping trip. The rest of the year you are dragging around a ton of extra weight.

If you can afford to buy it and to feed it, by my guest. But for the OP to imply that Tesla is impeding the future of EVs because they don't solve their extreme edge case is silly. Today's tech could easily cover 80% of all driving needs (probably more but I'm being conservative) and if we could get to that point it would be amazing.

"Dragging around a ton of weight". You're swimming upstream in this country of large SUV's. I would have thought that that idea has already made it's bull run and everyone knew it. I routinely drive 20 to 35k per year and used to own a hemi;-) So 100kwh is the smallest battery pack for my needs lol. So longer trips are once every couple of weeks or a month. If I could stomach a more efficient electric mini-cooper by god I surely would. But I don't want that and like the extra room. Many are bigger road trippers than me. Some have more time than me to leisure, some have less. So if people want more convenience in their style of travel, then they should get it when it's available. If they build it we will come.

 

[FirstInTown]

But for the OP to imply that Tesla is impeding the future of EVs because they don't solve their extreme edge case is silly. Today's tech could easily cover 80% of all driving needs (probably more but I'm being conservative) and if we could get to that point it would be amazing.

OP here, Strider has some good points I agree with. From a resource and weight perspective, smaller is better for everyone. Strongly agree. But, I AM an edge case and DO have a charger problem. When does that get fixed? 1-year? 5 years? Since Tesla is in charge of Super chargers and where they site them, and I am seemingly close to alone as an owner in this area, we have the classic chicken-and-egg delemia.

I watch the new charger maps from Tesla, EA and the like in this area. Other than some RedE chargers (looks like level 2) there doesn't seem to be anything planned in this area. The elusive infrastructure plan? Maybe. In what time frame?

Part of the reason we got the 'least efficient model' is the X has WOW factor up here. Most have never seen one and the doors still have that WOW, WHAT IS THAT to get conversions about EVs started. I love being an EV advocate, as also have a Volt.

My problem is I SOOOOO want EVs to replace ICE everywhere. But those truck lovers (and SUVs) around me (the missing 20% from your 80% covered) are not going to switch from the gas loving trucks until the EV can go EVERYWHERE the truck can. Just stubborn that way. So give us the option (500 mile CT) of more than 400 miles to get us by now, as we need it. (It's not really 500 miles anyway in real life up here. Hopeing for real 300.) Make it an option, so people covered by charging don't have to pay or carry the battery around. Yes, this is a band aide until charging is here, but don't know when and don't want to wait and burn more gas in the mean time.

I need chargers on the way and I've gone so far as contact a casino on the way about adding a Destination Charger. Not a gambler, but could eat a meal while charge (at level 2, Boo).

 

[strider]

I need chargers on the way and I've gone so far as contact a casino on the way about adding a Destination Charger. Not a gambler, but could eat a meal while charge (at level 2, Boo).

As I was reading your post I was going to suggest this exact thing. This is what we did back in the Roadster and pre-SC MS days. Work with restaurants or other places to install chargers (EVSEs) where you need them. Typically we would provide the EVSE and sometimes help out with installation. Host would cover the electricity in exchange for patronizing their establishment while charging. Definitely something to look into.

The other thing we used heavily in the pre-SC days were RV parks. They have tons of 240/50 plugs sitting around. Though many of them close down in the winter so that may not be an option.

 

[Rocky_H]

The OP has a charging problem, not a range problem.

I need chargers on the way and I've gone so far as contact a casino on the way about adding a Destination Charger. Not a gambler, but could eat a meal while charge (at level 2, Boo).

As I was reading your post I was going to suggest this exact thing. This is what we did back in the Roadster and pre-SC MS days. Work with restaurants or other places to install chargers (EVSEs) where you need them.

...which is why it is SOOOO infuriating that Tesla has continually progressively neutered charging speeds!! They used to have 80A charging, then they nuked that and made it 72A. Then they nuked that and made it 48A. Regular businesses being able to provide 20kW charging to Tesla vehicles was totally kickass and a really nice feature over other electric vehicles, but Tesla took that advantage out back and shot it. Having that kind of pretty high speed from an AC circuit really covered these kinds of annoying holes in the DC charging maps.

 

[Rocky_H]

And side note. With the title of this post, it's giving me a little start every time there is a notification on this thread. I see "So-and-so has rated your post......Disagree" WHAATT?! Oh.

 

[mxnym]

And side note. With the title of this post, it's giving me a little start every time there is a notification on this thread. I see "So-and-so has rated your post......Disagree" WHAATT?! Oh.

Because everybody loves rabbit holes, I just have to point out that it was difficult for me to NOT disagree with this post just for kicks and giggles.

 

[_jmk]

But you aren't taking into account that the new Model S&X now have the heat pump system and should have significantly less range loss in cold weather.

Heat pump is marketing towards the people who are lazy to do the math.

My heat draw is 2–3kW while driving. A Great (car) pump can do COP3 in ideal conditions, so the heating eats 1kW constantly. So for every 3h driven you save 6kWh, not that big of a deal. You also get this only in the ideal conditions, if it’s really cold you save nothing.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Heat pump is marketing towards the people who are lazy to do the math.

My heat draw is 2–3kW while driving. A Great (car) pump can do COP3 in ideal conditions, so the heating eats 1kW constantly. So for every 3h driven you save 6kWh, not that big of a deal. You also get this only in the ideal conditions, if it’s really cold you save nothing.

You'll have to define "really cold". I live in Maine so my really cold is much colder than it was in the UK, but not as cold as somebody from the Northern Plains.

I suggest watching some of Bjørn Nyland's videos winter-testing the heating with the heat pump.

In Tesla's design the heat pump doesn't just give you improved heating efficiency, it also adds the ability to move heat from the battery to the cabin.
That allows recovery of heat added for and by Supercharging that would previously have been lost as waste heat as the car cooled the battery. So it's very beneficial to longer winter trips as it makes them cheaper and faster.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Also let's not dismiss 6kWh as some trivial amount. My 90D pack only holds 71 usable. I don't think I'm being dazzled by a mere marketing gimmick if I "do the math" and find a heat pump gives me a 8% increase in range according to the above estimate.

 

[Richbot]

It's almost like efficiency is a combination of numerous small but meaningful changes that get better over time as we as humans learn more about how to make a mass-produced EV

I mean, point taken, you're going to charge for what, 5 minutes more on a car that uses strip heating? 10 minute more? on a long road trip maybe a total of 30 minutes more? But it's something and every little bit helps when you're only capable of carrying around a couple gallons' of gas worth of energy

 

[Prairie]

YES, BUT ALMOST NO PEOPLE LIVE THERE.[1]

Again, you don't have a perfectly reasonable itinerary that demands a longer range car. In effect, you lost the supercharger lottery and the places Elon decided to drop the magic charging dust are all in the opposite directions of where you want to go. This is the EV equivalent of having to walk up hill to school both ways.

Your case, basically, is an outrageously uncommon outlier. Demanding higher range for outliers isn't really good product planning.

[1] To be clear: where "there" means your particular destination arrangement and not just the upper midwest, which on the whole is very well served by superchargers.

Not so uncommon. You all need to look and live in the Great Plains and other rural areas. It’s not “perfect conditions “ range, it’s damn cold and windy and snowy not getting stranded in an isolated area, regardless of which EV you drive. Sure, maybe I’m only 125 miles from ANY charger at this point in time. Will I die in a sudden whiteout at 5 F with 30 mph winds? It’s NOT uncommon. oh, I may be hauling cattle with my cypertruck ( not on your life)

 

[WhiteWi]

Range is important for EVs at least for now but we must find balance between battery weight and range.

 

[FirstInTown]

Heat pump is marketing towards the people who are lazy to do the math.

My heat draw is 2–3kW while driving. A Great (car) pump can do COP3 in ideal conditions, so the heating eats 1kW constantly. So for every 3h driven you save 6kWh, not that big of a deal. You also get this only in the ideal conditions, if it’s really cold you save nothing.

Good to know the 2-3 kW on normal drive for cold heat. I have a heat pump as a part of my home's complex heating system (using a Heat pump where it can hit -30 or -40 deg is not a common heating situation and has to be part of a gas back up and electric assist unit that works with Heat Pump. ) Heat pump works well, saves money over the year but below 0 deg F, the HP is at a COP (cooefficient of performance rating) of 1, so no gain over straight resistive heat. At 30 deg f, the COP is closer to 3 (300%) and warmer the air, the higher COP, as high as 4 to 5 at 60 deg F on new Heat Pumps. In a car, don't know if that high, but at 30deg, might use 1/3 the energy as resistive. BUT, at 30, not a problem with dist on old X, its under 20deg f.

The unknown for me is how the octovalve helps car overall efficiency. Sounds like it has 15 modes and can move waste heat from batt, motors and HP as needed to passengers or battery as needed. Sounds impressive and can only help over the old X. I do miss that. But don't know yet how much it will help at 0 deg F and if it would be enough for my 'impossible drive'