The 500-mile Tesla?

[TI Sailor]

Thanks to all for the extremely thoughtful, in the fullest sense of the word, and reasonable explanations wrt changes to diff. Sooo...short of downsizing the motor, we shouldn't expect many changes to the rear drive unit. It's already highly efficient. New question: If the front motor in an AWD MX or MS is smaller, might its use be prioritized at highway speeds, possibly reducing the overall energy needs? Again, just asking and looking forward to the replies.

 

[igotzzoom]

A 500-mile range would be cool, but not altogether necessary, IMHO. I think a 200-250-mile real-world range is plenty for me, with the provision of fast-charging like the a supercharger or J1772 DC quick-charger. For everyday use, I'd probably charge mostly at home, and use the quick-chargers or overnight chargers on road trips.

 

[brianman]

A 500-mile range would be cool, but not altogether necessary, IMHO. I think a 200-250-mile real-world range is plenty for me, with the provision of fast-charging like the a supercharger or J1772 DC quick-charger. For everyday use, I'd probably charge mostly at home, and use the quick-chargers or overnight chargers on road trips.

Sure, reasonable.

A 500-mile range would be cool, but not altogether necessary, IMHO.

Having more than 1hp isn't "necessary" either. They lived on it back when fuel was organic.

 

[TI Sailor]

Sure, reasonable.

Having more than 1hp isn't "necessary" either. They lived on it back when fuel was organic.

Since wind resistance increases in a non-linear fashion and, I believe, all that's needed at highway speeds is significantly less than the rear motor produces, doesn't it make sense to use a smaller motor for sustaining a given speed and a more powerful motor, e.g., the rear motor, for acceleration? Is that the utopian having your cake and eating it too?

 

[Johan]

Thanks to all for the extremely thoughtful, in the fullest sense of the word, and reasonable explanations wrt changes to diff. Sooo...short of downsizing the motor, we shouldn't expect many changes to the rear drive unit. It's already highly efficient. New question: If the front motor in an AWD MX or MS is smaller, might its use be prioritized at highway speeds, possibly reducing the overall energy needs? Again, just asking and looking forward to the replies.

You answered it yourself, it doesn't really matter much since both motors are already highly efficient and you are carrying them both around already. They could be geared differently but it wouldn't reduce overall energy needs much, might improve performance though (acceleration wise)

 

[rcc]

They wanted a two-speed transmission in the Roadster. They gave up on it because they couldn't find one at a reasonable cost that would stand up to the torque produced while shifting by the motor. The ones they tested all exploded under the stress.

I'm sure Tesla could get one that would do the job but you probably need F1 or near F1 equivalent technology to do it. And that's just too expensive.

 

[Red Sage]

There are two reasons why ever increasing range for Electric Vehicles is necessary, and will happen.

1. The ability to tell Naysayers to [SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM].
2. Allow for faster 'refueling' by Supercharging when not doing a battery swap.

Yes, both of these are very important.

[1] There are people who are very insistent about claiming the superiority of the ICE. They say that the improvements of ICE range over the past couple of decades is more than enough. They say that with the advent of usable Hybrid Electric technologies, the ICE will only get BETTER in the years to come. Pure electric vehicles, they say, are a complete waste of time.

They tend to be the very same people who never wanted Hybrids to begin with... They are the people who can't stand turbos and won't tolerate diesels... They are also the same people who didn't want more than a 4-speed manual transmission, and thought an overdrive gear was a waste... They are also the people who protested loudly against EPA setting Corporate Average Fuel Economy guidelines... They are also the people who didn't want to have electronic fuel injection, overhead cams, or engine management computers...

In other words, they are all hypocrites.

Because the very same 'advances' that they claim today make electric cars useless are all things they thought they could live without. The fact of the matter is that the sort of four-on-the-floor, four-barrel carburetor, dual exhaust, supercharged behemoth that they worship is typically hauled around on a flatbed today. Not because it is a show car. Because it is completely impractical in the real world. Way too loud, belching smoke, burning rubber, and stopping at every gas station that can be found. Why? Because with a 19 gallon tank and somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-8 MPG yielding maybe 106 miles of 'real world' range, you are going to run out of fuel if you try to take the sort of road trip that the Tesla Model S can manage using Superchargers.

[2] The larger the battery pack, the faster it can be filled. Adding 50% of range, from 30% to 80%, will remain at around 20 minutes to 30 minutes with Superchargers. The difference is that with a 500 mile total range, you would be adding 250 miles in that time frame, instead of 100-130 or so today. The same ratio will be true when a battery pack achieves 750, 1000, 1500 miles total capacity. Then you'll reach the point where a 'quick top-off' in five-to-ten minutes may garner a much higher mileage gain than is currently expected today. You would not stop 'just to charge' anymore. You would stop when you felt like it, and get a quick charge as a bonus, before heading on your way -- on your own schedule. That is the convenience of having higher capacity battery packs. Only the most absent-minded would ever run out of charge.

 

[rothhammerd]

I believe it is in a different type of battery-already in existence in R&D at a US University, yet not that stable yet-needs more development to make it more stable.