How come no (p)105d yet?

[Brando]

When you are#1 and you spend money on upgrades usually considered a waste. Don't they need to finish the 3,SEMI,Y, pick up? And solar roof systems. Boring, starship, starlink.

Where is the competition?

 

[whitex]

I’m sure if this EVER becomes reality - our 100d models will have 2500-3000 mile range... 10x more power than Lithium for same density.

Will never happen. Completely impractical. Even if you could fit 3000 miles worth of range, that means you get remove 90% of the battery (and associated weight) and have 500 miles range vehicle (yes, more efficient, will get you more than 10% of the original range using only 10% of the original capacity). Secondly. charging a 3000 mile range car from empty would also be completely impractical (stop at a supercharger to 36 hrs?). Almost nobody needs 3000 miles range, so nobody will pay for it. The only usecase is if you are going on a 3000 mile trip where there are no opportunities to charge along the way. So, not going to happen, even if technically possible.

 

[Sluggabed]

A couple of reasons the Model S pack upgrade hasn't happened yet and if transfered to the 2170 cell would yield a max pack size of approx 125 kwh. This is largely based on assumptions of amh for the 2170 cell. Won't get into weight / distance trade off because it goes further down the assumption path and really blows out the figures.

Firstly, Tesla has no need to upgrade when the competition is lagging behind despite the notice he gave them and still they've yet to fully catch on. So they're sitting on the tech which equals more $$ in their back pocket for the long game.
Secondly, its been pointed out, that the company's limited resources have been deployed to attack the Model 3 production etc etc.

Now to my quick calcs on the current cell vs 2170. (figures quoted are best info I could source at the time)
I haven't factored cooling loops, figure its a constant between packs (although less needed with the new cells)
Given an equal square area of 126 mm x 126 mm, you'll get 49 18650 cells and 36 2170 cells
Charge is 3400 vs 5750, weighting 45g and 66g respectively.
Therefore the 2170 cells given the same pack size equates to a 24% gain with only a 7% increase in weight (which could be negated by the less cooling loops needed)
So the 24% net gain equates the current pack area to ~ 125 kwh
This ties in with Elon stating they'd have a 400+ mile range car to sell soon. (Tesla time of course)
I'm sure we'll be drip fed the tech, like most other industries, unless it gets competitive very quickly.

Further improvements to chemistry or weight (Elon strongly suggesting this recently) are major factors in this blowing out even further. They've been keeping fairly quite in relative terms to tech since the early establishment days.

 

[Zorg]

Earliest competition is 2 years out... it's Tesla's game for now.

 

[DocZ]

Why not drop the biggest range of any EV to make other products obsolete before they even launch?

 

[Olle]

Will never happen. Completely impractical. Even if you could fit 3000 miles worth of range, that means you get remove 90% of the battery (and associated weight) and have 500 miles range vehicle (yes, more efficient, will get you more than 10% of the original range using only 10% of the original capacity). Secondly. charging a 3000 mile range car from empty would also be completely impractical (stop at a supercharger to 36 hrs?). Almost nobody needs 3000 miles range, so nobody will pay for it. The only usecase is if you are going on a 3000 mile trip where there are no opportunities to charge along the way. So, not going to happen, even if technically possible.

Of course, for similar reasons that don't have 3000 mile gas cars. 3000 mile Ev would be nice on Mars though, until there is a charging network.

 

[Tic-tac-toe]

I use the Tesla mostly for road trips on the I95 corridor. Don’t stop anymore than I did in our ICE vehicle usually for lunch and gas, now just lunch and charge

If we did not go away on the weekends, I will need to charge about once a month.

For urban dwellers like me, the current 300+ range works just fine even without home charging.

 

[Iluvpcs]

Yeah not that anyone would need 3000 miles, but more of weight to size thought of what could be changed in future EV cars for storage. If they can get the new chemistry stable/working with the fluoride then a 100d battery at 1000 lbs going down to say 150-250 lbs would be equal to a 150d or 250d model; that would more than satisfy 98% any daily driver who would like a 450-650 mile range per charge. My old ML320cdi (275k miles and sits in the corner mostly anymore) holds 25 gallons, and achieve 550-650 miles per tank and on some days doing 80-85 mph seriously blow through an entire tank driving across Midwest towns from start to home some days.

 

[MD500_Pilot]

I’ve done lots of long distance electric driving (65k miles in two years) and can say definitively I’ve never been frustrated by having to stop too frequently. 335 miles in a 100D is basically max human bladder range as it is.

I have driven my 100D back and forth to Phoenix a number of times. This is a 390 mile one-way trip for me. Driving the speed limit, not being aggressive and maintaining a 99% efficiency I show that I have to stop and charge for 25 to 30 minutes to make it home with about 15% battery left. I almost always charge longer than that just due to the kids wanting lunch, etc. Once the doors open, I can almost never get back into the car and on the road in less than 45 minutes to an hour.

When I get home, I am usually sitting at 50 to 60% battery left.

 

[Buddyroe]

Why would Tesla upgrade its battery right now? It's selling all the cars it can build. And they can just wait til the competition starts coming out with their cars and then hit them with the 120 or 130 with over 400 miles of range. That will put the competition 3 years behind them again.

As long as Tesla has the most range, they will continue to sell cars. By the time the competition finally catches up to Tesla's range, Tesla should have not only resolved all of their "fit and finish" issues, but also revamped the S and X interiors to something equal to or better than what the competition is doing.

 

[whitex]

Of course, for similar reasons that don't have 3000 mile gas cars. 3000 mile Ev would be nice on Mars though, until there is a charging network.

3000 mile gas car is a good analogy, though I bet you could fuel it much faster than charging a 3000 mile EV.

 

[Shock-On-T]

The 75 pack is 350V while the 100 pack has 400V. Could be that. Same amperage on that voltage = more kW for the 400V.

With a lot more amperage, won't that wreak havoc on the existing packs? What use are V3 chargers for at this point then?

That's the reason 75 and 100 are different.
The reason that none of the packs can do over 100kW or so is due to their chemistry. I think it's called the C-rate? of the battery.
If you exceed that rate it damages the battery internally.
There are batteries with higher C-rates but lower power density, so good for charging but bad for cramming under the floor.
There are also supercapacitors with a massive charge rate, but there seem to be problems with making them useful/cheap/dense etc.

 

[David99]

Tesla does indeed have a buffer at the bottom of their charge to protect the battery as you say, but that does not effect EPA range and should not be subtracted from the range indication.
...

Here is the post I made a while ago about the way Tesla is cheating on the range
This is why you can't get 'rated range'
Here is the post by another member doing his own research. He was actually able to graph how the rated range is counted faster than the discharge of the battery to 'arrive' at 0 when the battery reaches the safety buffer.
I think my car is lying to me...

This is also very interesting info from Jason about the subject of number fudging
I think my car is lying to me...

I have no doubt in my mind that other EV manufacturers are doing exactly the same. I just happen to have a Tesla Model S and am able to look at the data.

 

[FlyinLow]

“Range” is an interesting concept. While driving the energy in the traction battery is used for battery temp control, HVAC, wipers, lights, etc etc.
“Rated range” must be defined very specifically. A certain speed, HVAC settings, flat course, dry pavement...otherwise the variables cause too much variation. Look at the hyper-mile-ers driving >24 hrs at 25 mph and crazy miles. Likewise, driving 80 mph in the rain at night and near freezing, HVAC set to 75F and blasting my favorite bass tracks will greatly reduce my “effective range.”
Pickup trucks are a good example...while towing my range on a full tank of fuel is greatly reduced. Drive it empty and I can get twice the range on the same tank of fuel.
To get “average effective range” above 400 miles, like most ICE cars, we probably need a “rated range” of 500 miles or more. The 2020 Roadster is sporting 600 miles of “rated range” so I think my theory holds water. Add true 400 miles of driving, a buffer to arrive without being in danger of running out of juice, speeding by 5-10 mph, wipers and comfortable HVAC with the top removed...and we have parity.

 

[BulldogsRus]

Why not drop the biggest range of any EV to make other products obsolete before they even launch?

Because the current is more than adequate,hence why their sales are doing so well (up 247%). Secondly, competitors are also aiming for the current range and will be able to undercut Tesla on both price and quality because of their size and history.

 

[Sluggabed]

Why not drop the biggest range of any EV to make other products obsolete before they even launch?

As used in modern warfare, you get the enemy to burn money and resources on a product and prior to deployment before destroying it, then they've got less to come after you with.

 

[Zooomer]

The incentive for Tesla to release would be to further distance from people catching up.
The other incentive would be for people to have more incentive to upgrade. Many Tesla buyers are previous Tesla buyers. People with 85s would be more likely to buy a 105 then a 100. Not a lot but yeah, it's there.
To increase price. Often Tesla increases price of new offerings over old ones.

Why only a 105?
Because it doesn't require heavy retooling or investment. A change to a different cell or number of cells requires retooling and revalidation. If the weight of the car changes probably new EPA and safety ratings (like they had to do with 100).
If they moved to 2170 cells what would panasonic do with all the production capability? They already can't make enough 2170s and have plenty of the old.

With the deletion of the 75 I would guess that Tesla is going to come out with medium and long range versions of the S/X. up range slightly, possibly increase charge speed ability, possibly increase performance. Then do away with numbers. I think it's a bad idea. 80/105 or 80/110 would be better understood.

 

[ucmndd]

I think it's a bad idea. 80/105 or 80/110 would be better understood.

I disagree. I think very few people actually understand what this means.

A measure of battery capacity is meaningless without a commensurate measurement of efficiency. Now that more EVs are starting to hit the road we're starting to see this play out, with cars like the i-Pace having substantially lower efficiency than the Model X and going significantly less far on a charge even with a bigger battery. I think the most useful metric for consumers right now is a standardized representation of range for comparison purposes.

It's like advertising a 2,052,000 BTU fuel tank. Not that gallons is much better, but the ubiquity of gas stations of course makes this less of a concern.

 

[P100D_Me]

For urban dwellers like me, the current 300+ range works just fine even without home charging.

I'm in the same boat, I usually do my top up charging at the local shopping centre (32A/3P charger), that lasts me weeks. I think I've charged the car three times at home since owning the car.
I got the P100D for performance, not range so if Telsa came out with an even faster Model S update I'd consider that over extra range.

 

[Tic-tac-toe]

I'm in the same boat, I usually do my top up charging at the local shopping centre (32A/3P charger), that lasts me weeks. I think I've charged the car three times at home since owning the car.
I got the P100D for performance, not range so if Telsa came out with an even faster Model S update I'd consider that over extra range.

Same here. I fell in love with the car when I test drove it... and bought the car I test drove at a significant discount, 14K, a steal for this kind of performance. I use to want a Lambo but the S P100D can smoke most Lambos. Haha! And I could care less about track mode. Like I am ever going to take my car on a track. I can fit my kid and the dog in the back seat + a week's worth of luggage and gear AND smoke most supercars/hypercars, a complete blast to drive.

I am waiting for the 2020 roadster The SP100D is perfect for my current needs including range. We stop about every three hours anyway. I cannot think of one thing I want as an improvement on my S other than better autopark and software updates over LTE.