Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Preps Bigger 100 KWh Battery For Model S and Model X (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Tesla will soon offer a 100 kWh battery for the Model S and Model X that will allow for increased range -- perhaps as much as 380 miles for the Model S. Currently, the 90 kWh batteries are the company's largest capacity. Kenteken.TV is reporting that the Dutch regulator that certifies Tesla's vehicles for use in the European Union, RDW, has recently published a number of new Tesla variants. RDW's public database now includes entries for a Tesla "100D" and "100X," which are titles that follow Tesla's current naming system based on battery capacity. The listing for the 100D claims the vehicle has a range of 381 miles or 613 kilometers. The motor output is reported as 90 kilowatts (121 horsepower), which is the maximum output the Tesla motors can sustain without overheating. Autoblog notes that EU range estimates tend to be more optimistic than those issued by the U.S. EPA. A more realistic range might be 310 to 320 miles.
Those mileage figures need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Based on my own experience with my 70D (my real world range estimate = 200 miles) I estimate a 100D would have a range of around 285 miles. Which is still excellent.
I think 381 miles will only be possible driving 30mph on a flat road with no wind.
600mph for 30 minutes IMO
... the vehicle has a range of 381 miles or 613 kilometers.
'Cause the kilometer range sounds way better... Is there a switch or something?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Batteries are generally extremely heavy in their weight to energy ratio compared to gasoline. They also cost a fair bit of money and take a while to charge if you manage to drain that huge of a battery. Even your regular 240v home outlet could take a while. At some point aside from bragging rights it becomes impractical to have a battery that big. The Volt only has about a 40 mile battery and I've made it through the entire summer without having to resort to gas on my daily trips. I've even forgotten to plug the thing in at times and it still had enough. Granted I live in a small city so that helps but I can't see what having past 200 miles gains for you. It might be a bit easier for cross-country trips if you're hopping supercharger stations but I have a bad feeling that you're paying a huge amount in extra weight and costs for that minuscule usage situation. (Unless driving hundreds of miles a day is normal for you.)
I know they have to start somewhere, but electric cars still suck ass when it comes to range and convenience.
I can get in my 8000lb truck and drive 600+ miles before needing to refuel... and I can stop at nearly any fuel station to fill her up with 30+ gallons in 2-3 minutes(diesel pumps tend to be MUCH faster than gas pumps).
Then there is the problem of towing and hauling, with the technology available in the near future I can't see any way for an electric vehicle to be even remotely as capable as one that runs on dead dinosaurs.
I might be open to a heavy duty hybrid truck, or even a diesel electric setup like what we have on trains... but unless they drastically improve battery technology purely electric vehicles will only ever fill a niche market. And quite frankly, by the time they improve batteries to the point where they might be able to compete the oil companies will probably be manufacturing hydrocarbons from water and waste CO2 and selling it at the pump because batteries will likely never have the same power density as hydrocarbon based fuels.
Yes. The Tesla X with it's measly 532 horsepower is clearly lacking compared to the impressive 444 horsepower from the M3.
Dumbass.
If they can double that and make it recharge fully in about 5 minutes it'll be as good as a diesel.
From TFA (this is Slashdot, you're excused for not reading it):
[NOTE: An earlier version of this article suggested that the quotation of 90 kw (121 hp) for the Tesla's motor output was a typo or an error. We thank our reader Vigge50 for pointing out that EU requirements appear to require quoting maximum sustainable power over a long period, rather the peak outputs quoted by Tesla in North America. We've corrected the error.]
Well with that the range will about catch up with my M3, but the horsepower and refuel time remain lacking.
1. A Tesla has more HP than a M3.
2. The "refueling" happens in your home, while you get on with your life, rather than waiting in line at the gas station.
For long trips, you either pre-plan so that your recharges coincide with a meal at a nice restaurant, or just use your spouse's car (or maybe your mom's).
Regardless, as somebody who actually likes driving, I would still never buy one.
Have you ever actually driven a Tesla?
it's measured weirdly with an electric car -- I'll let someone with much more knowledge of it than me explain.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
As good as a diesel in trying to cheat to actually pass emissions? Or is that in cost per mile?
Does extremely well in bends due to very low center of gravity.
Tesla S's power-to-weight ratio is around 0.27 and the M3's power-to-weight ratio is equally around 0.27. We need another season of Initial D to find out which one is better.
-SR
My model S actually handles quite well in turns. It also is not surprisingly heavy for a car in its class, largely in part due to the all-aluminum body. Now the newer versions of my car have even better handling. My car weigh around 4700lbs (P85, 2013). A Lexus LS weighs between 4233 and 5115lbs according to Google.
Despite the weight, the car handling is supurb since all the weight is so low.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
That seems surprising to me, since I have taken my Tesla P85 up numerous long steep grades in the Sierra Nevada mountains, usually driving well over the speed limit. The only thing I notice about going up grades like that is the battery drains rather faster than normal. 120HP (90KW) for steady driving is a lot. For freeway cruising in my model S I average around 35KW.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I really love this argument of a "nice restaurant" while recharging. When I'm in the middle of a 350 mile, 7 hour drive up the traffic hellscape that is I-95, I'm definitely looking to add 30-60 minutes at a "nice restaurant" at the Darien rest stop. I have my choice between a McDonald's, a Pinkberry, a S'barros, and maybe a Subway, if I recall. The point is not the lack of nice restaurants, it's the lack of me wanting to extend a trip an extra 30 min to squeak out an extra 50 miles.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
As good as a diesel in trying to cheat to actually pass emissions? Or is that in cost per mile?
Why not both? Electricity produced by burning coal/natural gas/gas has the same environmental impact as directly burning gas in cars. And in the future the EV owner need to pay extra road construction/maintenance fee because they don't pay through pump.
Whatever you do, don't take a Tesla test drive. Just don't.
It will make you hate your slow, noisy, polluting M3.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The Model S is quite heavy. Bear in mind the Model S has the interior space of a Mercedes C-Class or BMW 3-series.
Comparing the curbside weights of the high-performance versions of saloon (American: sedan), as the Tesla markets itself as a high-performance car.
Tesla Model S 85D: 2188kg
Mercedes AMG C63: 1785kg
BMW M3: 1646kg
Audi A4 3.0V6 TDI: 1540kg
The Tesla is over 400kg heavier than a comparable internal combustion car.
Considering larger cars, the Mercedes AMG E63 estate (American: wagon), a significantly larger car with significantly more space inside, weighs 1945kg. The Lexus LS, also a larger car weighs 1965kg. The Tesla still weighs over 200kg more.
The Tesla is heavy. Significantly heavier than its direct internal combustion equivalents.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
Obviously bigger batteries are going to give you more range and possible better acceleration (at the risk of melting the motor). But at some point, aren't you limited by the physical space available to store the battery? Or have they figured out how to pack more kilowatt-hours into the same physical space? I would be inclined to spend more upfront for better range, but I can't afford the Telsa I want anyway.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Regenerative breaking make electric or hybrid a big win in city driving, but not so much in constant-speed freeway touring. But... I still want a vehicle with a constant-speed diesel charging batteries that drive a separate motor in each wheel.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's really not safe, let alone desirable, to drive 7 hours non-stop without a rest break or food.
This space intentionally left blank
Different poster here: I have not only driven an M3, I owned a 2005 M3 for 4 years. Traded it in on a 2012 Mustang Boss 302 (which was faster and better handling than the M3, but had a crappy interior). I traded the Boss 302 in on my 2013 Tesla P85+. The M3 is more nimble than the Tesla, although the Tesla does handle really well. As far as acceleration the Tesla blows the M3 away. The Tesla is much better to drive and live with than the M3.
Fuck, who has the bladder to go 7 hours non-stop?
The way I drink coffee or diet Coke when I drive, I have to piss every couple of hours.
And Ford increased the gas tank size on Fusion from 14 to 16 US gallons....
It's relative. Just like going on a long hike if you are conditioned to it, it really isn't anymore dangerous.
When I do long drives I time my stops where I'll run out of fuel. My current car that is roughly 455 miles or about 6 hours of constant highway driving. I spend no more than 10 minutes refueling and draining my bladder and am back on the road. If my car could drive more than 455 I still feel like I could go further, I wish I could get 7 hrs per stop then it'd be only 2 stops from Phoenix to Spokane.
Maybe I'm conditioned to this because I never need to stop for a bathroom break before the car runs out of fuel. It really bugs me when someone want's to go with me because I know they are going to need to stop much more often. Of course they're guzzling a 44oz soda while I sip water as needed.
Too late. We went for a test drive on a 70D model, and I'm already looking at finances on affording a model s. Maybe if I work 2 50-hour a week jobs? The girls (my wife included) loved the acceleration. I loved the free LTE data, and was considering finding a way to set up a local hotspot for us.
Range in a day. I generally walk to the office, groceries and so on are delivered. When I drive, I drive about 800 miles in an 11 hour day. I'm unaware of any electric that can pull that off. Plug-in hybrids are a great fit though.
Yes, the I3 is loud, and the Volt is a GM product. I'd have an Audi hybrid though.
Good to hear.
Whatever it takes, make it work. It will be worth it.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Exactly. Ideally something like the Audi Q7 e-tron would be in my garage except, as you point out, an expensive car is just a large wasting asset. Fun sometimes, but when you drive as seldom and as briefly as I typically drive it's hard to justify.
30 minutes of super-charging gives you an extra 180 miles, not an extra 50.
This is how I know that Tesla is going to be super-successful, because the fact that most arguments against EVs include over-the-top lies indicates that the fundamental problem is (a) ignorance and (b) an irrational fear of change. History has taught us that both (a) & (b) will auto-correct.
(nt)
I am just waiting for Tesla to start using a well known song by Five Finger Deathpunch as their marketing-jingle
This text has been written completely with recycled bits and bytes.
Just like going on a long hike if you are conditioned to it, it really isn't anymore dangerous.
Peeing only once in seven hours isn't dangerous to you? Not short term no, and not once in a while. But to say that that level of hydration and urination is good for your and A-OK is also a stretch.
You should both drink and piss more to stay safe in the long run, and I have that advice from a nephrologist.
Stefan Axelsson
One solution for long-haul EV trips is to use a pusher or generator trailer.
Think of it as a hybrid you can detach the engine from when you don't need it.
Maybe I'm conditioned to this because I never need to stop for a bathroom break before the car runs out of fuel. It really bugs me when someone want's to go with me because I know they are going to need to stop much more often. Of course they're guzzling a 44oz soda while I sip water as needed.
This.
I usually do my 5-6 hour drive with no stops, or one quick bio break, but I recently took it with 2 other people and this forced 3 stops on us. One of the stops was 20+ min. This turned what should have been a 5.5 hour drive into a 6.25 hour drive. Absolutely horrible.
I'm no fan of distance driving, but it's a lot better to get it done and over with rather than add 10-15% to the total time.
Also, Phoenix to Spokane? Wow. Hope you don't have to do that more than twice a year.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
Re #2: Where do you live that you have to "wait on line" at gas stations? This isn't 1973...?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!