# 100 kWh Battery...Is It Really Necessary?



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

I have been reading and watching everything EV, Tesla and Model 3 for the last year. Like everyone else I have been prioritizing my options on my Model 3 reservation based on perceived need and speculated cost. For the longest time the biggest battery pack was number 1 on my priority list. I held onto this belief even after driving a Chevy Volt for the past 4 years that gets 30-40 miles per charge and using 80% of my driving all electric. I justified this with the need to travel anywhere without the concern of running out of juice. Then two things happened that made me change my number 1 on my list.

First, the full autonomy was announced. After thinking about this long and hard I realized just how momentous this technology will be in the automotive industry. Even if I never see full autonomy sanctioned in my lifetime for nationwide use the technology of the enhanced autopilot and sensor suite will have a huge impact on my person ability to safely maintain my independence as I grow older, let alone the safety to the general public.

Second, I started to think about why I all of the sudden think I need 300 or 350 miles of range when I have been doing just fine with a car that gets around 35 miles of useful range. Every week I look at supercharge.info and see new Superchargers being built all over the country. I look at typical trip locations for me and see that I would not even have to bat an eye to get anywhere I might want to go (including visiting my mother in Maine from here in Atlanta) with the 215 miles of range promised on the smallest pack size. The few areas of the country that are still sparse (west Texas, North Dakota, etc.) are becoming fewer and fewer by the month. 

Battery size has gone from being number one on my list to somewhere around 5 or 6 and falling fast. If it comes in a package with other options I feel have a higher value, so be it but I am certainly not going to spend thousands of dollars just for a bigger battery anymore. I think it was just another form of range anxiety. This time not founded or supported with any relevant facts for me. Just my thoughts and I am sure others will disagree. I would be curious if others have had a similar change of heart though.

Dan


----------



## Gilberto Pe-Curto (Oct 20, 2016)

Hi @Dan Detweiler
though you might be right for American scenario, that is not the case here in Southern Europe.
If you zoom into Portugal and Spain on 
SuperCharge.info
you'll see that battery anxiety is totally legitimate.

And Tesla cars are going to be world wide, not just nation (USA) wide.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Gilberto Pe-Curto said:


> Hi @Dan Detweiler
> though you might be right for American scenario, that is not the case here in Southern Europe.
> If you zoom into Portugal and Spain on
> SuperCharge.info
> ...


I totally understand...and sympathize. Hopefully with time it will no longer be a concern for you either.

Dan


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

I'm getting the largest battery available. I've had too many episodes where my Leaf doesn't have enough range for a trip. I've managed to flat-line it three times. When the battery is low enough that the range indicator "gives up" and just shows dashes, and you've got several more miles to go before reaching your destination, it's a very stressful situation.

Superchargers are nice for making long trips possible, but the performance is poor compared to a gas station. Electric cars are still worth it because home charging is so much better than visiting gas stations. I'm willing to rely on superchargers for the occasional road trip, but I do not want to have to visit one just to complete a long day's errands.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

garsh said:


> I'm getting the largest battery available. I've had too many episodes where my Leaf doesn't have enough range for a trip. I've managed to flat-line it three times. When the battery is low enough that the range indicator "gives up" and just shows dashes, and you've got several more miles to go before reaching your destination, it's a very stressful situation.
> 
> Superchargers are nice for making long trips possible, but the performance is poor compared to a gas station. Electric cars are still worth it because home charging is so much better than visiting gas stations. I'm willing to rely on superchargers for the occasional road trip, but I do not want to have to visit one just to complete a long day's errands.


You bring up an interesting point. We all have different needs and wants. I wonder what percentage of drivers log over 200 miles in a typical day (not including trips, vacations or the like)? That would be over 60,000 miles per year. That would certainly make a difference in one's perceptions!

Dan


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

I very much agree with you. I get why it's enticing to some but I think range anxiety is constantly coming down as more and more places get connected with various charging options. My car will get around 420km per tank and usually I fill up maybe twice a month if that. The only reason I may get a larger battery is if it's part of an overall package like Trevor has suggested may be their route or if it's not too cost prohibitive with the other options. My thought is a bigger battery would give the car a longer lifespan before range got to be annoying. Losing 15% of a 215mile range would be a bit annoying for sure.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Don't fall for the "typical day" line of thought. The problem is that the outlier days happen more often than you think.

During my typical day, I drive a 60 mile round trip to work and back. But every now and then I need to run an errand on the way home from work. Some days, I need to drive the kids somewhere for an after-school activity. If there's a large snowfall, you'll find that those 60 miles can end up using twice as much kWh as it does during the typical day.

I want the extra range so that I can go back to just doing things, instead of planning every trip out to decide if I have enough juice to make it.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

garsh said:


> Don't fall for the "typical day" line of thought. The problem is that the outlier days happen more often than you think.
> 
> During my typical day, I drive a 60 mile round trip to work and back. But every now and then I need to run an errand on the way home from work. Some days, I need to drive the kids somewhere for an after-school activity. If there's a large snowfall, you'll find that those 60 miles can end up using twice as much kWh as it does during the typical day.
> 
> I want the extra range so that I can go back to just doing things, instead of planning every trip out to decide if I have enough juice to make it.


I totally get all of that. Really, I've been in a Volt for 4 years!  Totally understand the impact of weather. For me, and I understand that it's just me, I have never had to go 200 miles in a day that wasn't a business or family trip where I would utilize the Supercharger network anyway. I wonder how many people would fall into that category.

Dan


----------



## Topher (May 11, 2016)

The hardest trips I currently take are day trips. 100 miles out and back business trips, in directions other than the few nearby superchargers are nervous making. The number of Superchargers that would make this easy is probably not likely in the next five years.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> I totally get all of that. Really, I've been in a Volt for 4 years!  Totally understand the impact of weather. For me, and I understand that it's just me, I have never had to go 200 miles in a day that wasn't a business or family trip where I would utilize the Supercharger network anyway. I wonder how many people would fall into that category.
> 
> Dan


My 3 times per year trip from Hendersonville, NC to Michigan and Wisconsin would not be possible during the winter in an S60 or 75. IN summer my trip would take 2 days rather than 12 Hours. A 90 would be marginal. 100 plus would be a great relief. Also, I simply desire the luxury of long range. This reminds me of my neighbor buying a Camaro. his wife said the V6 was fine. He got the V8. It is extra fine!


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

pjfw8 said:


> My 3 times per year trip from Hendersonville, NC to Michigan and Wisconsin would not be possible during the winter in an S60 or 75. IN summer my trip would take 2 days rather than 12 Hours. A 90 would be marginal. 100 plus would be a great relief. Also, I simply desire the luxury of long range. This reminds me of my neighbor buying a Camaro. his wife said the V6 was fine. He got the V8. It is extra fine!


When I plug in your trip on evtripplanner.com using very cold outside temperatures and a 600 lb. payload using an S60 with 19 inch wheels it has no problem routing the trip through Superchargers along the route. This with a charge buffer of 90% down to 15%. I have heard that this site is very accurate in it's predictions. Curious as to what would cause you to feel it was not doable.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> You bring up an interesting point. We all have different needs and wants. I wonder what percentage of drivers log over 200 miles in a typical day (not including trips, vacations or the like)? That would be over 60,000 miles per year. That would certainly make a difference in one's perceptions!
> 
> Dan


Exactly, different needs & wants... as well as different budgets...  at the end of the day, If money was not an issue, I think that most of us would go for the 'Best' package, if this is the way T≡SLA goes, whether it is for the car to drive 'ludicrously', for possible full self driving capability, for the longest range... or all of the above...

However, since I also imagine that most (certainly me... ) don't have unlimited funds, choices will have to be made... as for range, if you are going to take the car on a hike across country (whichever that country is, except for Monaco... ) you are going to appreciate the ability to go a little longer and not have to stop every 2-2.5 hours for up to 45-60' supercharging... that is why I am still hoping that Model ≡ will have at least 240-250 miles of range in the base case (a psychological win over GM's electric box) and.... that I can convince my personal CEO @ home that a 'Better' 75D represents the best value for money!!

Great evening/day to all!


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

for me, I'd rather spend the money on other options than a larger battery. 200ish miles is fine for me. 
Yesterday I filled up my car, 229 miles since the prior fill-up 8 days earlier. There are obviously weeks I have many more miles than this, but more times than not, I fill up no more than once a week. and days where I drive a total of 200 miles in a day are in directions with superchargers.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Bottom line for me is that I have a 200 mile bladder. Any battery with more than that is just insurance on the need for adult diapers.

What...TMI? 

Dan


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> for me, I'd rather spend the money on other options than a larger battery. 200ish miles is fine for me.
> Yesterday I filled up my car, 229 miles since the prior fill-up 8 days earlier. There are obviously weeks I have many more miles than this, but more times than not, I fill up no more than once a week. and days where I drive a total of 200 miles in a day are in directions with superchargers.


@MelindaV , well, there you go, sounds like one this one, you've got it covered... I know, coming from driving almost 40k miles/year in recent times and expecting to maintain at least half of that when I retire (betting on at least 3-4 round trips of min. 1,500 miles/year, that my range autonomy & SC needs will put be in a slightly place...  
Diversity, diversity in the Model ≡ family...


----------



## AscendedSaiyan (Nov 7, 2016)

I like to attempt to plan for the unexpected. Anything could happen. Job distance can change. If you have to move, family visit distances change. An emergency that takes you off the beaten path could occur. Then, add the different weather effects to battery range and you could end up in trouble. Therefore, max range is what I'm going for. It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> When I plug in your trip on evtripplanner.com using very cold outside temperatures and a 600 lb. payload using an S60 with 19 inch wheels it has no problem routing the trip through Superchargers along the route. This with a charge buffer of 90% down to 15%. I have heard that this site is very accurate in it's predictions. Curious as to what would cause you to feel it was not doable.


What range are you estimating for a cold winter day? Have you reviewed the experience of Canadian owners? it looks like 150 would be a reliable number for an S 60. Stopping at every supercharger along the road might work but that would add many hours to a trip which I could easily complete in 12 hours now. With an S 90 I would stop in London Kentucky, Louisville and Lafayette Indiana. That requires more than 200 miles of reliable winter range. That is well beyond the capability of any thing other than a 90d on a cold winter day. I have driven this road a dozen times in my imaginary Tesla. Even with a 90 on a 10° day with wind this could be very very nerve-racking. I am also curious. How many hours do you anticipate taking to travel from Hendersonville to Milwaukee?


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

pjfw8 said:


> What range are you estimating for a cold winter day? Have you reviewed the experience of Canadian owners? it looks like 150 would be a reliable number for an S 60. Stopping at every supercharger along the road might work but that would add many hours to a trip which I could easily complete in 12 hours now. With an S 90 I would stop in London Kentucky, Louisville and Lafayette Indiana. That requires more than 200 miles of reliable winter range. That is well beyond the capability of any thing other than a 90d on a cold winter day. I have driven this road a dozen times in my imaginary Tesla. Even with a 90 on a 10° day with wind this could be very very nerve-racking. I am also curious. How many hours do you anticipate taking to travel from Hendersonville to Milwaukee?


Evtripplanner shows 23 hours. That includes charging.


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> Evtripplanner shows 23 hours. That includes charging.


In my Ford fusion energy it takes 12 hours. A little longer if we take a long lunch. 13 hours would be a typical leisurely pace for us. I appreciate your interest in this. I certainly agree that many people over buy their battery.


----------



## Rick59 (Jul 20, 2016)

Good discussion folks. Life is about choices and balance. At my age, my Model 3 is probably my last car (either I'm dead or the wife puts me in a home). I can afford most but not all options. I'm going to buy the best car I can get within my budget.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Rick59 said:


> Good discussion folks. Life is about choices and balance. At my age, my Model 3 is probably my last car (either I'm dead or the wife puts me in a home). I can afford most but not all options. I'm going to buy the best car I can get within my budget.


Great plan @Rick59 ! Go for it!! We'll be watching from afar ... further down the list!


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

The other thing to keep in mind. You're probably not going to want to charge the car to 100%. Tesla recommends 80-90% charging to prolong battery life. So even though the base model will have a range of 215 miles, charging to 80% drops that down to 172 miles. Not a deal breaker, but something to keep in mind.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

A 100kWh battery is not really necessary. I am however going to get the largest battery I can afford to try and mitigate winter range loss given I live in a colder climate.

If you ask anyone the biggest issue people have is the lack of range on most EVs given that they generally have smaller batteries due to then being ICE conversions instead of purpose-designed EVs (LEAF and i3 excluded). Elon is right that the minimum passing grade is 200 miles (just over 300kms) for an EV to be a true replacement for an ICE. Anything less is a compromise for most given the elevated costs of EVs at the moment.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Although not really necessary, I would pay for a 100 KWH battery option if available.

For me, it would be worth it versus leather seats, fancy roof, big stereo, big wheels or other items that ultimately have limited wholesale value when being sold off years later.

Everyone has a different need, one for me is being able be to make round trips to the airport without having to stop at a supercharger .

It would be interesting if there was some sort of long range option package, to see the uptake of such an option package.


----------



## Gilberto Pe-Curto (Oct 20, 2016)

I've been a sort of Tesla vehicles evangelist here in my company.
A small number o colleagues is really thinking about putting down 1000€this Christmas for a reservation.
But others more skeptical about EVs, and curiously that are in a better financial situation, are much more far away from doing a reservation.
And these skeptical ones what make them be more skeptical is autonomy+easy of charging, even if they don't use their current ICE full autonomy, I feel that is what would make them make a decision to go electrical.
It's in part psychological, but it's what it is.
They prefer to spend 50€/week in diesel and be comfortable about going anywhere, than going EV.

So in summary,
I think that bigger battery, 100kwh or smaller,would be great to convince other people to go electric.
And achieve Tesla main goal of going cleaner.

PS:
Some of them I guess that when they feel the performance of a Tesla 35000$ car, they will want one.
And yet, again they will move for a reason more psychological than practical, because one can not unleash the power of a Tesla here with current speed restrictions.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Gilberto Pe-Curto said:


> I've been a sort of Tesla vehicles evangelist here in my company.
> A small number o colleagues is really thinking about putting down 1000€this Christmas for a reservation.
> But others more skeptical about EVs, and curiously that are in a better financial situation, are much more far away from doing a reservation.
> And these skeptical ones what make them be more skeptical is autonomy+easy of charging, even if they don't use their current ICE full autonomy, I feel that is what would make them make a decision to go electrical.
> ...


Understand... this is why new market entrants first appeal to 'early adopters' (who are generally not budget constrained... ), 'second waivers' which those of us at M3OC who don't already own an MS... and the laggards... who need a lot more convincing!!!  nice job trying to be an enthusiastic advocate at this point in Portugal!!


----------



## Timmo (Apr 10, 2016)

I think Australia will be one country where most people buying a Model ≡ will be opting for the largest battery pack available. The closest distance between major cities is 300km (Sydney- Canberra). And currently the only travel options are along a narrow corridor between Melbourne and Brisbane. 

Trips to Southeastern Victoria, west NSW or any other state in Australia require high level planning and the good will of workshops and business with 240v 3 phase outlets.


----------



## m3_4_wifey (Jul 26, 2016)

I think that if charge times can work there way towards 5-10 minutes (as Straubel has previously stated) and charge stations keep growing to be roughly every 60 miles, the range of an EV above 200 miles goes way down on my list. At that point, I think an EV becomes the same as an ICE for long distance travel without the gas smell at the pump. 
The Model 3 will have the best battery pack heat management system Tesla has designed to allow for the fastest charging. It only makes sense that if each customer is on the charger for half the time, Tesla could save money by installing half the chargers. 
I'm guessing that Tesla has been doing reliability testing on the 2170's and charging speeds for years. As Tesla gains confidence in the reliability data on the new battery packs with the 2170's, they could the charging speed limited to by the car's software to be less conservative (faster) and closer to a 10 minute charge time.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

My minivan will go 400+ miles on a single tank at highway speeds.
If we want EVs to replace ICEs, we're still going to want to offer those longer ranges. Many people (like me) will insist on it.

(sorry, I'm still shell-shocked from 5+ years of Nissan Leaf ownership. )


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

garsh said:


> My minivan will go 400+ miles on a single tank at highway speeds.
> If we want EVs to replace ICEs, we're still going to want to offer those longer ranges. Many people (like me) will insist on it.
> 
> (sorry, I'm still shell-shocked from 5+ years of Nissan Leaf ownership. )


I agree 100% My Ford Fusion Energi approaches 600 miles: electric (20) plus gas/hybrid (580). Range is a really nice.


----------



## Timmo (Apr 10, 2016)

One of the problems when thinking about range is most of that thought comes from the current personal transport paradigm.

With the advent autonoumous vehicles will the vehicles require more or less range?

Are we going put up with having to stop every three hours on an autonomous trip or are we going to be itching to get out after two hours?

I would think that as the technology advances many city dwelling buyers will opt for a smaller battery in a Model ≡ and for out of the ordinary trips get a long range "Tesla network" Model S or X. This is probably even more likely of those owners that are willing to put their Model ≡ on the network.

The 100kWh battery will have its place but the predominant pack will likely be 40 - 50kWh for city trips on the Tesla Network.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Man! Has this Friday post really got us all going! Kudo to you, @Dan Detweiler ! 
As @garsh and @Timmo just wrote, it is probably hard to get away from what we've been programmed to expect from generations of ICE vehicles, with actually longer & longer ranges out of optimized fuel consumption hence better mileage over the years ... I have gotten as much as 600 miles out of my X5, albeit a rather bulky set of wheels, in long stretches under good highway conditions...
Yet I believe our choice for T≡SLA comes from a willingness to change from our current practices, as we aspire to _*a different lifestyle*_, where _beauty, comfort, quietness _- as well as the occasional spaceship-like accelerations for _sheer fun!_ - matter more now! Add to that the knowledge that, at the wheel of our shiny Model ≡, each of us will be contributing to the revolution of the transport industry in a more environmentally friendly way, as well as the desire to _take our time_ more, 'smell the roses', and we know *why* we are prepared to compromise some on BEV range...
As long as I can get ~180-200 miles under average conditions from a min. 250 miles Model ≡, I don't think I will ever regret all the cars I have been driving for the last 40+ years...!
Have a great day folks... and, remember, Model ≡ is coming... (small wink to all you GoT fans out there! )


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Timmo said:


> One of the problems when thinking about range is most of that thought comes from the current personal transport paradigm.





Michael Russo said:


> ...it is probably hard to get away from what we've been programmed to expect from generations of ICE vehicles


I understand your attempts to justify the shorter range of electric vehicles. It's easy to say that we're just "used to it" in our ICEs, but don't really need it.

But it's hogwash.

Well, for me at least. And I want to make sure that you don't talk anybody else into that line of thought without providing my counter-arguments. 

I performed that justification to myself 5-6 years ago and bought a Nissan Leaf. I've been "smelling the roses", first every 100 miles, and nowadays every 60 miles. And you know what? It sucks. It limits my freedom. Range anxiety is real when you're in a car with low range. You *will* end up in a situation where you're not quite sure if you will make it to your destination (and sometimes, you won't). It's usually a horrible feeling, unless you're an adrenaline junky.

Tesla originally offered the Model S in a 140-mile variant. Musk now states that 200 miles is the "minimum threshold for an electric car." Note: he said _minimum_. Not ideal. Not preferred. But minimum.

If you'll only be doing local driving with the car, then I think you'll be fine with the minimum. But if you take longer trips somewhat regularly, get the longer range. What if the supercharging station you planned to stop at is all occupied? Worse, what if it's out of order? If you don't want be an adrenaline junky during every long-range trip, and you can afford the longer range, then get it just for the piece of mind that it provides.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

garsh said:


> I understand your attempts to justify the shorter range of electric vehicles. It's easy to say that we're just "used to it" in our ICEs, but don't really need it.
> 
> But it's hogwash.
> 
> ...


As always and with all things, everyone's needs and wants will be different. The reason you state above is exactly the main reason I went with a Volt instead of a Leaf four years ago. I know that for me 130-150 miles of any weather/circumstance range will be more than adequate. I never meant to argue that everyone's needs would be the same as mine. Just trying to see what other's thoughts might be.

Thank you for your input. Luckily Tesla seems to have options for all of us!

Dan


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

garsh said:


> I understand your attempts to justify the shorter range of electric vehicles. It's easy to say that we're just "used to it" in our ICEs, but don't really need it.
> 
> But it's hogwash.
> 
> ...


@garsh, believe we are not so far apart as it seems... If you thought I was trying to justify anything, then I did not express myself well...  Certainly, I intend to take my Model ≡ on long trips regularly enough that range will always be a consideration... yet I regretfully won't have $80k to spare for my Model ≡...  Clearly I'll go as far as I can go upon ordering, to avoid (at my age) potentially unhealthy adrenaline jumps!!

My main point was I believe that what attracts us in T≡SLA are a bunch of _other things_ _besides_ range.... therefore we are prepared to accept _for now_ that 400-500 miles of (true, effective) range is not feasible today... and plan our next ICE process. Otherwise, we would not be on this list, exchanging daily with passion... 

I think your experience with the Leaf is very telling, as are Bjørn Nyland's Youtu videos, which show recharging every 100-150 miles up in (often cold...) Norway... hence yes, we want the joy of a T≡SLA _with the largest affordable range_... best of both worlds then... right? 

Have a great day!


----------



## AutoMcD (Nov 8, 2016)

I'm in the same boat as most of you. The highest rating battery not necessary but I'll get as many options as I can.
I actually more concerned with AWD and performance, If the larger battery nets better power output (as it does with the model S) then that is a factor to consider.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

garsh said:


> I understand your attempts to justify the shorter range of electric vehicles. It's easy to say that we're just "used to it" in our ICEs, but don't really need it.
> 
> But it's hogwash.
> 
> Well, for me at least. And I want to make sure that you don't talk anybody else into that line of thought without providing my counter-arguments.


Here the thing is... People have become used to a certain ICE driving experience. But they forget it wasn't always this way. 40 years ago, to have a car with a 400+ HP rating that did 0-60 MPH in less than six seconds, you'd be driving something that got at best 12 MPG on the highway, and probably lower, around 8 MPG. So, with a 25 gallon fuel tank you might have a maximum range of 300 miles. But back then, there was no orange idiot light for _'low fuel'_ in such a car. And, the instant the shadow of the fuel indicator's needle touched _'E'_ the car STOPPED COLD. So, people got used to filling up when the indicator showed 1/4 tank remaining. So, you'd probably stop to refuel every 225 miles.

It just so happens that it was right around 1976 that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy _(CAFE)_ ratings from the NTSB _(NHTSA)_ were put into place along with EPA & CARB requirements for emissions. The entire automobile industry protested over the _'impossible'_ goals that were set before them for fuel economy. They said it couldn't be done. They said it cost too much. They said it wimped out engines too much. They swore that _'no one'_ wanted such cars at all. Sound familiar? Yeah. All the same things they now say about electric cars. Well, you know what? They lobbied for reductions, and deferments, and concessions, and got them, and when the deadlines arrived, they met them. And, when new regulations appeared, with more stringent requirements, they did the same again. Ring around the rosie.

This continual menagerie went around over and over, in multiple iterations over the course of the last 40 years. Cars moved from carburetion to fuel injection. From pushrods to overhead cams. From electronic controls to computerized controls. Variable valve timing and lift systems were devised. Spark retard and cylinder shutdown phases were added. And gradually, fuel economy improved to the point where even powerful V8 engines or turbocharged sixes can manage a previously unheard of 20 MPG, 25 MPG, or 30 MPG on the highway. And as a result, the range of ICE vehicles improved tremendously. So that the ever-popular, incredibly insidious _'Last Chance GAS!'_ stations of lore were wiped from the scenery of the open road.

And that's why you never see those old school, four barrel carburetor, four on the floor, dual exhaust, 400+ HP behemoths doing road trips anymore. Because the gas stations are further apart than ever before, and without a reserve tank, or a couple of jerry cans in the trunk, those suckers simply cannot span the distance between them. Sure, the myth is that _'Gasoline is EVERYWHERE!'_, but the fact is that when it comes to a true old school gas guzzler, it is better to put them on a flat bed trailer and tow them to the track or to car shows.

Those who are in favor of ICE, and continue to spout that there is _'no way'_ that electric cars will work for them, are usually gearheads. And those guys have conveniently forgotten that all the technologies that have lengthened the lifespan of ICE over the past 40 years are things they vehemently protested. They didn't want better fuel economy, lower emissions, multicams, or computer controlled fuel injection at all. Because _'Real Men'_ worked on their own cars and could tune them theirselves and wrench them to perfection based solely on the sounds that came from under the hood. And all these new fangled cars required you go to school and take those classes and hook up a laptop instead and that just wasn't the _'right way'_ of doing things. They go so far as to modify their diesel trucks to emit gigantic plumes of black smoke and then revel in unleashing those clouds of caustic carcinogens on those who drive hybrids like the PRIUS or VOLT. It is their way of protesting the so-called _'Green Movement'_ and establishing their freedom and independence from _'The MAN'_.

Yet all of a sudden, just when the final twilight of ICE is at hand, while the blazing hot dawn of EV is rapidly on its way, those same naysayers now embrace those last vestiges of ICE as if it has _'always been this way'_ and they can't live without them. To them, now anything with an ICE is _'Part of the Family'_. From the 3.5 litre Ferrari V12 to the 8.0 litre Dodge V10, from the 5.7 litre Chevrolet V8 to the 1.7 litre DOHC VTEC 4-cylinder Honda, all with eternal praise for air-cooled Porsche Flat sixes, and homage to Mazda's Wankel rotaries. And yes, at least the VOLT has a _'Range Extender'_ to support its pitiful electric range, but that's OK. Because those are REAL cars!

There was a Detroit Electric Car over 100 years ago that purportedly had about a 200 mile range. Until Tesla Motors came along, hardly anyone made a serious attempt to match or surpass that capability with anything other than an ultralight tube frame chassis. So really, development of electric cars had practically halted _(beyond utility carts and golf carts)_ for about 100 years before the Tesla Roadster arrived. Given that gap, it was a tremendous achievement, that gearheads nevertheless poo-pooed as being not so hot and just _"a TOY... for The RICH!"_ Nothing more.





Now the Tesla Model S P100D rockets to 60 MPH in as little as 2.5 seconds. Vastly quicker than the gas guzzling pony cars of the early 1970s. Tremendously more fuel efficient at 98 MPGe combined. 315 mile range, about 221 miles if you leave a 25% buffer. But with an energy reserve that amounts to the equivalent of _almost_ three gallons of gasoline _(2.96735905)_. So, if it had the equivalent of a 19.0 gallon fuel tank like a *2017 Chevrolet Camaro* _(which has a 304 mile range)_, it would probably have an EPA range rating of around 2,017 miles... 1,513 if you want to _'fill up'_ with a _'1/4 tank'_ remaining. I wonder if that would be _'enough'?_ Honestly though, I just look forward to a time when EVs regularly carry an energy reserve that is equivalent to 5.0 gallons of fuel, or ~170 kWh capacity. Because at that point, all the EV Naysayers will be largely silenced for good. And yes, an electric vehicle operating at about 250 Wh per mile average would likely have a range of well over 600 miles leaving a 10% reserve for anti-bricking.

Just understand that after a long delay, electric vehicles will reach such milestones. It will take dedication, hard work, and a whole lot of luck. But it will happen no matter what gearheads claim. And 40 years from now, only old-timers like me will remember any of it.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> But they forget it wasn't always this way. 40 years ago, to have a car with a 400+ HP rating that did 0-60 MPH in less than six seconds, you'd be driving something that got at best 12 MPG on the highway, and probably lower, around 8 MPG. So, with a 25 gallon fuel tank you might have a maximum range of 300 miles. But back then, there was no orange idiot light for _'low fuel'_ in such a car. And, the instant the shadow of the fuel indicator's needle touched _'E'_ the car STOPPED COLD. So, people got used to filling up when the indicator showed 1/4 tank remaining. So, you'd probably stop to refuel every 225 miles.


The first 12 or 13 years of my driving was in a car that rolled out of Dearborn, MI before I was born, has a 16 gallon tank, averages 9MPG and has a sticky fuel level float (aka fuel needle sat at about half full most always) so I would track mileage and fill up every _100-125 miles_ (¼ remaining)... but it's quick (in a straight line) and you can hear (and smell) every drop of fuel pouring thru it when you step on the gas  I can not imagine driving it every day now; not because of the limited range per tank, but because of the fuel costs!
Maybe because that's what I grew up driving, I've never been all that concerned on per tank/charge range. My modern cars have a measly 225-300 range per fill-up and I can not think of a time driving long distances that I would have wanted to go any further than that before stopping.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> Maybe because that's what I grew up driving, I've never been all that concerned on per tank/charge range. My modern cars have a measly 225-300 range per fill-up and I can not think of a time driving long distances that I would have wanted to go any further than that before stopping.


My first car was EPA rated at 28 MPG, but I discovered that by filling it with Premium fuel I could average around 33 MPG instead. It had a 17.5 gallon fuel tank, and on road trips I would often run it down to vapors, with about 16 gallons between refills. So, I wouldn't even start looking for a gas station until I had gone 450 miles, and could easily make it 530-to-540 miles before stopping. And it did that with the cruise control set at 85 MPH. No other vehicle I've owned or driven since had comparable range. Most of the time you are risking a long walk by just going about 400 miles, it seems. Because of my first car, I tend to drive everything below 1/8th tank remaining before stopping. So sometimes the orange idiot light is blaring at me the whole time. That's how I know the other vehicles I've been in simply don't have the same sort of range. I doubt most people have any idea at all of how far their cars can go. I'm certain they just stop when someone has to pee, or smoke, or whenever the needle hits 1/4 tank remaining.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

My first vehicle was a GMC S-15 pickup. When you filled it up, the fuel gauge went about a quarter tank above the F. I always thought that was funny.

Then one day, while driving down a highway, I discovered that when it showed a quarter tank remaining, it was actually completely empty. I managed to coast to the next exit. The only building close to that exit was a strip joint. I was 16 at the time. There were no mobile phones back then. Fun times!


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Even if long range is not absolutely necessary, it allows for comfort on long drives. For us not in California, it can be absolutely needed. Superchargers are often 200+ miles apart if you wish to stay on common routes. Utilizing closer spacing can require "detours" doubling the time required . Add cold and a headwind and travel is scary. For example, on a recent drive from Detroit to Milwaukee, a lake effect snow closed I 94 requiring a significant detour to the Indiana tollway. It was 3 below zero. The detour removed a critical Supercharger from the route. I want and need a safe margin. This is not a rare event, but rather a winter day. I need 320 plus. That may be enough on a cold and windy day.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

One last thought on this thread. Depending on how things get packaged, it may be more economical/practical to get the bigger battery if it is part of a package of options you care about. For instance, for me, full autonomy is a big deal. I'm getting it regardless of any other option. If Tesla decides to "package" this with high performance, bigger battery, etc. instead of offering everything "a la carte" as is the case with the S and X then it may end up being better for me to go the high end rather than trying to piece together just the options I want. Believe me, I'm not going to cry if I end up with a 350 mile battery in order to get full autonomy! 

As with everything at this point, time will tell. It's all just speculation right now. One thing I am convinced of though...no matter what version, no matter what price...you're going to get one hell of an automobile for the money.

Dan


----------



## Badback (Apr 7, 2016)

My first car was borrowed from my parents, a 1952 Chevy Delux 4 door, pea soup green, three on the tree. The polar opposite of a chick magnet. It had a leaky rear tire so I had to carry one of those tire pumps that went in a spark plug hole. I drove it through my first year of college. It got about 20mpg from its 6 cylinder engine.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> One last thought on this thread. Depending on how things get packaged, it may be more economical/practical to get the bigger battery if it is part of a package of options you care about. For instance, for me, full autonomy is a big deal. I'm getting it regardless of any other option. If Tesla decides to "package" this with high performance, bigger battery, etc. instead of offering everything "a la carte" as is the case with the S and X then it may end up being better for me to go the high end rather than trying to piece together just the options I want. Believe me, I'm not going to cry if I end up with a 350 mile battery in order to get full autonomy!
> 
> As with everything at this point, time will tell. It's all just speculation right now. One thing I am convinced of though...no matter what version, no matter what price...you're going to get one hell of an automobile for the money.


Not quite _'everything'_ is _a la carte_ with the Model S. I doubt very much that full autonomy would be packaged with the Performance line items, otherwise there would be no reason to include the hardware on every vehicle. Their bundled package items tend to be features for comfort & convenience, or safety & Autopilot. And aside from Performance, most are not tied to a particular battery pack capacity or drivetrain configuration either. I'm pretty sure that if you want, you will be able to add Full Autonomy to the $35,000 car as the sole option. Accessories and chargers are no longer listed as part of the Model S order page, but you can order those things separately through the Tesla Store.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

TrevP said:


> If you ask anyone the biggest issue people have is the lack of range on most EVs given that they generally have smaller batteries due to then being ICE conversions instead of purpose-designed EVs (LEAF and i3 excluded).


A good point, but... I believe the LEAF was based on the VERSA platform, though it isn't a direct ICE conversion, and doesn't share the same name plate. This is similar to how the VOLT was based on the CRUZE platform, though heavily modified... And the BOLT is based on the SONIC/TRAX platform. Most traditional automobile manufacturers are not willing to build from the ground up for an EV, unless it is specifically to protect their ICE sales. That's why the BMW i3 doesn't look more like an X3, or 2-Series _(as was the Active-E)_.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

Mike said:


> It would be interesting if there was some sort of long range option package, to see the uptake of such an option package.


My only issue with that suggestion is that most specify they would want it to be a low performance version of the car. This, even though I've told them repeatedly that just because the car might be capable of 0-60 MPH in 4.2 seconds, doesn't mean you can't operate it just as slowly as a circa 1963 Volkswagen Beetle. The energy used over the course of the first four, five, six or so seconds to get to highway speed is of no significance to overall range at constant speed. That is, unless one thinks four or five car lengths is _'significant'_. Elon says they don't build slow cars. I say they never should.

To me it also seems as if the notion would appeal to those who claim that they want small, narrow, steel wheels and tires, hubcaps, tiny brakes, empty, tin can, no A/C, powered nothing, no-frills, line item minus car... either so they could get max range, or not have a _'luxurious'_ vehicle. I sincerely doubt that will happen either. And besides... Doesn't Porsche charge extra to get a low weight, decontented version of their cars? Following that path, no one would save any money on the purchase anyway. The way I look at it, if the base Model ☰ is as well equipped by default as the current base Camry, I'll be fine. But it should still blow the doors off a Camry and everything else up to a 340i.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> My only issue with that suggestion is that most specify they would want it to be a low performance version of the car. This, even though I've told them repeatedly that just because the car might be capable of 0-60 MPH in 4.2 seconds, doesn't mean you can't operate it just as slowly as a circa 1963 Volkswagen Beetle. The energy used over the course of the first four, five, six or so seconds to get to highway speed is of no significance to overall range at constant speed. That is, unless one thinks four or five car lengths is _'significant'_. Elon says they don't build slow cars. I say they never should.
> 
> To me it also seems as if the notion would appeal to those who claim that they want small, narrow, steel wheels and tires, hubcaps, tiny brakes, empty, tin can, no A/C, powered nothing, no-frills, line item minus car... either so they could get max range, or not have a _'luxurious'_ vehicle. I sincerely doubt that will happen either. And besides... Doesn't Porsche charge extra to get a low weight, decontented version of their cars? Following that path, no one would save any money on the purchase anyway. The way I look at it, if the base Model ☰ is as well equipped by default as the current base Camry, I'll be fine. But it should still blow the doors off a Camry and everything else up to a 340i.


Well, my situation (as I've stated on other threads) is I need to be able to drive from my house to Pearson (Toronto) airport and back with no stops.
That's 380 kms on hilly 4 lane freeway. I plan to drive my Model 3 like my Prius (until I can explore the range envelope). So, I do 100 kph on the freeway unless rolling down the hills, then I let it speed up to 120 with steady throttle. 
I need a battery that will let me drive 380 kms, at 100 kph, at -5C, with headwinds usually (westbound) at 20 kph, with heat on, to arrive back home with the advised cushion of about 10% battery capacity remaining.
So I'm a customer looking for the biggest battery I can get without having to add stuff I don't care about. .....


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> A good point, but... I believe the LEAF was based on the VERSA platform


That rumor went around for a while, but it's not true. The first Leaf _prototype_ was based on a Versa, but the production cars do not share a platform with any other vehicle.


----------



## Ron Miller (Jul 31, 2016)

Range, for me, has little to do with how far I'm used to going without refueling. It has to do with the availability of fuel. I think I could probably make do with a range of 125 miles if I knew that there would always be an available charging station no matter where I wanted to refuel, just as there is for an ICE car. It's the desperate paucity of charging stations that mandates getting as much range as money can buy IF we want to drive our BEV on long trips away from home. 

That said, my present car is a Ford Fusion Hybrid with a range of about 450 miles on the highway. When I take delivery on my Model ☰, I will not trade it in. I'll keep it, and probably use it for intercity travel, leaving my shiny red ☰ at home in the garage -- not cool, just practical reality. New York City dwellers, don't own cars at all. When they want to do intercity driving,
they depart from their usual mode of transportation and rent cars. Many SUV drivers don't need SUVs very often. They could buy an inexpensive sedan and easily rent a van on the rare occasions when they truly need to carry a lot of cargo, and they'd probably save many thousands in the initial purchase price and greater economy vs the small cost of occasional van rentals.

My point is that I won't expect my Model ☰ to be appropriate for every single driving situation, so if the cost of a 100kWh battery is very high, I can just do without. Admittedly, many drivers do need that, and if they want a BEV, they must spend whatever they have to in order to get the biggest battery available. But for a lot of us, maybe most of us, I don't think it's something that we need to lose a lot of sleep over between now and the day we're asked to place our actual order.

it would be neat to have a BEV with a range so great that one could drive from Toronto to Montreal round-trip in February and charge up in one's own garage. But IF long-distance road trips are not frequent -- and for the majority of us, they're not -- it's really not much of a sacrifice to do 97% of our driving locally in a marvelous Model ☰ and simply use a different vehicle in the 3% of situations in which range anxiety would be severe. Maybe that alternative vehicle is already sitting in the garage, but if not, it's easy enough get one for the weekend from Budget Car Rental, which is affordable with all the money we save with our Model ☰s.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

There are certainly times when it is prudent to be practical and pragmatic. There are also times when it is more highly advised to show off by making sure mouths are shut and noses are bloodied. The problem with the continuing war against FUD in regard to EVs is that some contrary viewpoints may appear to be perfectly reasonable on the surface. That's how they get you -- by interleaving small bits of reason and fact with rhetoric and lies to lead to a false conclusion and improper result. It is important that we all be vigilant, while also understanding just how insidious the false perception of EVs can be.

The notion that EVs can or should 'only' be used 'around town' is one of the points I applaud Tesla Motors for dismissing. The idea that it is 'OK' for a $35,000+ electric vehicle to be perceived as being incapable of road trips should not be accepted as gospel. And, the sooner it is possible to afforably place a 100+ kWh battery pack into an electric car, the better. Because once the FUDsters no longer have a leg to stand on, their three-legged table will tumble and fall for good.


----------



## Ron Miller (Jul 31, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> The notion that EVs can or should 'only' be used 'around town' is one of the points I applaud Tesla Motors for dismissing. The idea that it is 'OK' for a $35,000+ electric vehicle to be perceived as being incapable of road trips should not be accepted as gospel. And, the sooner it is possible to afforably place a 100+ kWh battery pack into an electric car, the better. Because once the FUDsters no longer have a leg to stand on, their three-legged table will tumble and fall for good.


I couldn't agree more. That's why I have a Model 3 reserved and remain an avid supporter of Tesla and Mr. Musk.
I'm just saying we aren't there yet, not in this decade.
We will get more charging options in the next few years:

Scenario 1: We get many more, the fees are just to cover costs (like with Tesla Superchargers) and the availability of open stalls is good: I'll feel comfortable using my Model 3 on long intercity trips.
Scenario 2: Same as Scenario 1 but with the increase in EVs exceeding the number of added stalls, so it's common to encounter waiting lines at charging stations: I will NOT be driving my Model 3 on long intercity trips
Scenario 3: We get more chargers, but most conveniently-located ones are for-profit, making electricity more expensive than gasoline: I will NOT be driving my Model 3 on long intercity trips
Scenario 4: The situation remains similar to today's where Superchargers are quite rare in most of the US, and, when they are available, one may have to drive far off his route to get to one, but waiting lines are uncommon: I may opt to use the Tesla, depending on the variables.
I look forward with great alacrity to the day when the "notion that EVs can . . . only be used for 'around town'" can be dismissed entirely [operative word is "entirely"]. I'm just saying that the day hasn't arrived, IMHO, but that this delay will in no way make me postpone my purchase.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

@Ron Miller -- The _'aren't there yet'_ argument is full of holes.

This has already been announced and is happening already, as there are already more than 140 Supercharger locations in the U.S. than Tesla originally stated were necessary in 2012.
Not a problem at all. What is _'common'_ is that people on cross country trips encounter... no one at Superchargers. The majority of people will charge their cars at home, overnight, as they sleep.
Tesla has repeatedly stated, and I have echoed numerous times, that there is no chance that Superchargers will become a _'monopoly'_ on the order of Standard Oil. You can get electricity anywhere. EVs are not a captive audience as are ICE vehicles to gas stations.
Superchargers are _'quite rare'_ in four States: North Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska, and Hawaii. What are you talking about? There is no need for a _'Supercharger on every corner'_ or a _'Supercharger at every exit'_ because people typically charge their cars at home, and there are to be thousands of Destination Chargers at various locations.
Presuming that Superchargers must be as ubiquitous as gas stations is incorrect. In a nation with perhaps 250,000,000 ICE vehicles, there are only about 120,000 gas stations. That's one for every 2,083 vehicles or so. In Los Angeles County, one of the most vehicle centric places in the world, there are something like 6,000,000 registered ICE vehicles. But only around 1,900 gas stations. That's one for every 3,100 vehicles or so.

Even if you presume that it takes the mythical _'five minutes'_ to fill an ICE... And you further assume it takes six times as long, thirty minutes, to make a typical Supercharger stop... That means you would need something like 1 Supercharger location for every 516 vehicles on the road to match the relative _'availability density'_ of gas stations in LA. Thus, the 344 Supercharger locations currently in the U.S. are enough to cover up to 177,504 Supercharger enabled vehicles that use Superchargers exclusively for charging. And there are currently another 7 of them under construction, with 10 more permitted. That 361 locations would allow for 186,276 people to use Superchargers exclusively. And once again, it is highly unlikely that will be the case. Just as it is highly unlikely that the Supercharger network will not continue to expand. FYI, there have been something like 89,500+ of the Model S sold in the U.S. and perhaps a bit over 18,200 of the Model X. Still plenty of room to grow, especially when Tesla expects that less than 10% of annual driving will be for long distance travel on the Supercharger network.

Let me know when the notion that ICE vehicles are incapable of running out of fuel anywhere, ever, takes place, will you?


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> @Ron Miller -- The _'aren't there yet'_ argument is full of holes.
> 
> This has already been announced and is happening already, as there are already more than 140 Supercharger locations in the U.S. than Tesla originally stated were necessary in 2012.
> Not a problem at all. What is _'common'_ is that people on cross country trips encounter... no one at Superchargers. The majority of people will charge their cars at home, overnight, as they sleep.
> ...


Wow, look out folks, RedSage is on a roll!

Couldn't agree more though. It really gets frustrating when ICE users continually try to directly compare public charging needs with public refueling needs of ICE vehicles. Maybe we need to turn the explanation around. "How many public gas stations would we need if every ICE automobile owner in the US had their own private refueling station in their home? On top of that, the gas they used out of their home refueling station was about half as expensive as the gas at the public gas stations. They probably would only use the public stations if they were making long distance trips where they couldn't gas up at home...right?"

*BINGO!!!
*
It's really not that hard people...just sayin'.

Dan


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> It really gets frustrating when ICE users continually try to directly compare public charging needs with public refueling needs of ICE vehicles.


Just to be clear, @Ron Miller was not doing that. He was implicitly comparing the _convenience_ of each system for long-distance travel.

Gas stations are available in so many locations that - for the most part - you can plan a long trip without even thinking about where you're going to refill the vehicle along the way.
Pumps are fast enough, and there are enough of them at any location, that it is rare that you must wait for a pump to free up before using it, or the wait is only 1-2 minutes.
The supercharger network won't require nearly as many "pumps" as the current gas station network. As you rightly point out, destination & at-home charging should eliminate a large portion of the need. But the supercharger network is not yet complete enough to "just drive" on a long trip. I *must* check for charging locations and plan my route around their availability. For some locations (mostly in California AFAIK), I must also worry about congestion. And unlike the 1-2 minute wait at a gas station, you could end up with a several-hour wait. But this is solvable, and doesn't require nearly as many supercharging stations as there are gas pumps to solve.

Add more supercharging station *locations*. Tesla continues to do so.
Make the superchargers faster. I'm so happy that SCV3 has been announced, and I'm hoping that the Model 3 can take advantage.
Add more superchargers at the locations that see a lot of peak-time congestion. Elon has announced plans to do so.
This will get solved, but it will take a while to get there.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

garsh said:


> (...)But this is solvable, and doesn't require nearly as many supercharging stations as there are gas pumps to solve.
> 
> Add more supercharging station *locations*. Tesla continues to do so.
> Make the superchargers faster. I'm so happy that SCV3 has been announced, and I'm hoping that the Model 3 can take advantage.
> ...


Great add, @garsh ... thanks.
By the way, how do you get to the head stroking emo..? Loved it!!


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

On Christmas Eve I was talking to a friend about Tesla and he was saying "but when we drive to california, I know where I like to stop to buy gas..." as an argument against EVs. I told him EV owners also know where to stop and you could drive from here (Portland) to Southern California, charging along the way when you stop for lunch/dinner and not pay a dime in 'fuel' compared to the hundreds he would be paying in gas for the full sized SUV his family would take on a road trip. You literally could see the lightbulb go on over his head with that realization. Ha
I think most ICE people (in other words most people) do not realize how much the charging infrastructure has developed in the last 5 years.


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

Charging is always brought up as a problem for EVs but really that problem gets better everyday. New superchargers go in constantly, they're starting to expand some popular stations. There are other charging networks too that are starting to offer more powerful chargers so they're not that inconvenient to use. 

With gas stations what we'll probably see is they'lll have to install chargers. Losing 25% of your customerbase over the next 10 years would be a heavy blow. Install chargers and EV owners will be in buying snacks and drinks etc. Wouldn't even bug me if the products were at a higher premium then they already are compared to grocery stores as I'd like supporting a business that takes EVs seriously. 

It does make me sad that the argument I hear the most from ICE owners is that it takes more then 3 minutes to charge the car so they'll stick with gas. The 350kwh+ charging is really going to be a huge tipping point for a lot of those that'll hold out and resist the shift. Most of these people have kids, grandkids etc.. is it not worth their future to get a greener car and wait an extra 10 minutes to get a 'full tank'? Attitudes stressing over 10 minutes of time will cause much unnecessary damage to the climate. I suppose its usually the same people arguing that EVs aren't green as 100% of electricity worldwide comes from coal (because we're not transitioning away from that or anything )


----------



## Ron Miller (Jul 31, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> @Ron Miller -- The _'aren't there yet'_ argument is full of holes.
> 
> This has already been announced and is happening already, as there are already more than 140 Supercharger locations in the U.S. than Tesla originally stated were necessary in 2012.
> Not a problem at all. What is _'common'_ is that people on cross country trips encounter... no one at Superchargers. The majority of people will charge their cars at home, overnight, as they sleep.
> ...


Well, that was a cornucopia of facts and figures. If I wanted to create a flame war on this very friendly forum, I could reply with dozens or hundreds of hypothetical trips around my area, Ohio, on which an EV driver would have to go very far out of his way to recharge before getting back home. The definition of "rare" is relative to ones needs, isn't it? By my definition, chargers in Ohio are quite rare. There are many trips I could take fairly easily with current infrastructure. There are many that would be a real hassle, such a hassle that I'd simply elect my hybrid for them. I'll repeat, I'm a strong supporter of Teslas. When my Model 3 number comes up, I'll have my order submitted in five minutes flat. But I'll also repeat something you've failed to refute: we're not there yet with the charging infrastructure. Remember that this was NOT a complaint in my original post. In this thread on 100 kWh batteries, I was just commenting on the fact that if batteries that capacious are not available, and there are trips that would cause an owner excessive range anxiety, there are simple, low-cost solutions to those rare occasions. Your rants have tried to make it sound like I'm preaching that EVs are good for nothing but around-home driving whereas almost nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Steve C (Sep 28, 2016)

I am looking forward to a trip to PEI when I get my model 3. Truth is..... there are no superchargers on the way. We would have to really plan something out to make sure the trip went smoothly. I'm hoping they get some chargers out that way sooner than later but I don't see it on their 2017 upcoming stations.


----------



## Rick Scinta (Jun 29, 2016)

I debate range in my head all the time. I take road trips from Tampa/Saint Petersburg FL to Fort Lauderdale FL a few times a year and that's around 255 miles. Yes, there is a supercharger along the way, but my worry is I'd have to drive the speed limit for sure unless it's that slippery that is can travel 75mph - 80mph and still get decent range. BUT it's only 3 times a year and I could always rent a car for a weekend for $100-$120 which is totally feasible, but do I want to? Is the savings of not getting the larger battery worth it? When it's time to sell my car or trade, will the range be reduced or seem low compared to the new offerings? I guess I could fly too but that takes the fun out of it. The logical part of me says rent a car like everyone else should for the special occasions or just fly for $150. Opinions?


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Ron Miller said:


> (...) I'll repeat, I'm a strong supporter of Teslas. When my Model 3 number comes up, I'll have my order submitted in five minutes flat. But I'll also repeat something you've failed to refute: we're not there yet with the charging infrastructure. Remember that this was NOT a complaint in my original post. In this thread on 100 kWh batteries, I was just commenting on the fact that if batteries that capacious are not available, and there are trips that would cause an owner excessive range anxiety, there are simple, low-cost solutions to those rare occasions. Your rants have tried to make it sound like I'm preaching that EVs are good for nothing but around-home driving whereas almost nothing could be further from the truth.


Thank you, Ron, this is a great clarification! This is indeed almost always a very friendly forum, with sharing, mostly constructive debates... and fun, all of which I know all members appreciate... At times, there may be misunderstandings yet then there is typically an immediate attempt to clear the air which I feel you tried to do with this post; kudo to you for that... 
As some said earlier, the SC charger network is not optimal everywhere today, yet that will continue to improve over time. Having said that, when the time comes to order, I do think all of us who need/like to drive longer distances at times will 1. get a larger battery to go 'the extra mile' and 2. benefit from technical progress in charging & battery technology that will shorten charging times on the road... Let's look forward to that!


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> Even if you presume that it takes the mythical _'five minutes'_ to fill an ICE...


This is a point I always end up getting into a heated debate with people. ICE folks only count the actual time the pump is dispensing the commodity.

They never count sitting for a left turn to enter the facility while traffic prevents them from driving to the pumps.

They never count waiting for a pump when the price is suddenly 2 cents cheaper (per liter) and the place is crowded with vehicles jockeying for a spot.

The place I use for my Prius, enroute to/from the local YMCA, is a real PITA and if a trip to the YMCA was timed with versus without the fuel stop, more than 5 minutes of my life will have been wasted navigating road and pump traffic.

I CAN'T WAIT to be able to fill up at home.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

agree with @Mike - If I need to stop for gas on the way to work, it easily adds 10 minutes to my drive time, and that's going to the gas station just a block off my regular route.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Steve C said:


> I am looking forward to a trip to PEI when I get my model 3. Truth is..... there are no superchargers on the way. We would have to really plan something out to make sure the trip went smoothly. I'm hoping they get some chargers out that way sooner than later but I don't see it on their 2017 upcoming stations.


I'm waiting for the north of Superior route to have coverage so a drive to Winnipeg thru Ontario is doable.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Rick Scinta said:


> I debate range in my head all the time. I take road trips from Tampa/Saint Petersburg FL to Fort Lauderdale FL a few times a year and that's around 255 miles. Yes, there is a supercharger along the way, but my worry is I'd have to drive the speed limit for sure unless it's that slippery that is can travel 75mph - 80mph and still get decent range. BUT it's only 3 times a year and I could always rent a car for a weekend for $100-$120 which is totally feasible, but do I want to? Is the savings of not getting the larger battery worth it? When it's time to sell my car or trade, will the range be reduced or seem low compared to the new offerings? I guess I could fly too but that takes the fun out of it. The logical part of me says rent a car like everyone else should for the special occasions or just fly for $150. Opinions?


IMHO, get the biggest battery that will be available.


----------



## Steve C (Sep 28, 2016)

Rick Scinta said:


> I debate range in my head all the time. I take road trips from Tampa/Saint Petersburg FL to Fort Lauderdale FL a few times a year and that's around 255 miles. Yes, there is a supercharger along the way, but my worry is I'd have to drive the speed limit for sure unless it's that slippery that is can travel 75mph - 80mph and still get decent range. BUT it's only 3 times a year and I could always rent a car for a weekend for $100-$120 which is totally feasible, but do I want to? Is the savings of not getting the larger battery worth it? When it's time to sell my car or trade, will the range be reduced or seem low compared to the new offerings? I guess I could fly too but that takes the fun out of it. The logical part of me says rent a car like everyone else should for the special occasions or just fly for $150. Opinions?


Get the biggest battery you can and drive baby drive!


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

Rick Scinta said:


> I debate range in my head all the time. I take road trips from Tampa/Saint Petersburg FL to Fort Lauderdale FL a few times a year and that's around 255 miles. Yes, there is a supercharger along the way, but my worry is I'd have to drive the speed limit for sure unless it's that slippery that is can travel 75mph - 80mph and still get decent range. BUT it's only 3 times a year and I could always rent a car for a weekend for $100-$120 which is totally feasible, but do I want to? Is the savings of not getting the larger battery worth it? When it's time to sell my car or trade, will the range be reduced or seem low compared to the new offerings? I guess I could fly too but that takes the fun out of it. The logical part of me says rent a car like everyone else should for the special occasions or just fly for $150. Opinions?


I'd say get the biggest one you can afford simply because there is some degradation. If the base level battery will JUST barely cover your trip then it's only going to get slightly worse over time. I'd not be that scared but still lithium ion batteries do degrade over time. We're lucky Tesla packs have proved incredibly resilient but still you don't want to be on the verge as time goes on. I see bigger battery as future proofing. Longer you can keep the car the more money its saving you.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Michael Russo said:


> By the way, how do you get to the head stroking emo..? Loved it!!


Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. It was one of the old emoticons from an InvisionBoard-backed website where I used to be a moderator. I just did an image search for it.

Another favorite of mine was the old "blink" emoticon:








Which I think does an excellent job of conveying "What? What did I just read? I'm quite confused."
Our version seems to be giving the poster a stink-eye. More like "Ooooh, really? I can't believe you posted that."


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

Ron Miller said:


> Well, that was a cornucopia of facts and figures. If I wanted to create a flame war on this very friendly forum, I could reply with dozens or hundreds of hypothetical trips around my area, Ohio, on which an EV driver would have to go very far out of his way to recharge before getting back home.


Thank you very much for the context and explanation of your position.

Did you ever have an argument with a Woman, then realize at one point she was bringing up issues that had nothing to do with you? Saying things about events you were not involved in... As if she were continuing an argument with you that she started with someone else, and was now just responding by rote, on automatic, without actually listening to anything you say...? Talking about something you have no clue about? I have. It sucks.

With that in mind, I apologize if it seems I intended to start a _'flame war'_ because that was not the case. I was addressing the points made, not the individual. Because on their own, in a vacuum, they typically lead to a certain tale I have read too many times over the past three years.

Allow me to introduce myself: I am your Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Apologist Fanboy. I hold the exact opposite position with regard to the notion that hybrid vehicles are a viable path toward transitioning traditional automobile manufacturers toward a fully electric future. Instead, I believe that at best hybrid vehicles are a delaying tactic put into place to _'make it look good'_ as they work hard to lobby regulatory officials and elected representatives to delay or change fuel economy and emissions rules so that they no longer have to improve their cars at all.

As such, I am rigidly opposed to language I perceive as being in any way conceding points to those who continually lie about the benefits of electric drive, or the potential they represent. Especially so when I know full well those points have been addressed several times already and quite successfully by the very existence of Tesla Motors. I am a _'car guy'_ and was a longtime fan of both Honda and GM. But it has become clear to me that those companies are no longer on the forefront of innovation within transportation and have no interest in being there. Instead, along with the rest of the traditional automobile manufacturers, they would prefer that _'The FUTURE!'_ remain as far away as possible, constantly used as a promotional tool while they sell ICE vehicles to the masses for decades to come.



Ron Miller said:


> The definition of "rare" is relative to ones needs, isn't it? By my definition, chargers in Ohio are quite rare. There are many trips I could take fairly easily with current infrastructure. There are many that would be a real hassle, such a hassle that I'd simply elect my hybrid for them.


OK.



Ron Miller said:


> I'll repeat, I'm a strong supporter of Teslas. When my Model 3 number comes up, I'll have my order submitted in five minutes flat.


Good.



Ron Miller said:


> But I'll also repeat something you've failed to refute: we're not there yet with the charging infrastructure.


If you say so. I disagree. I believe that numerous Tesla Naysayers have made the exact same point over the years. But they also keep moving the goalposts. No matter what parameters are met, they never acknowledge them, and continually claim that some new mark will never be reached. They often point to some fringe case between the Middle of Nowhere and the Ends of the Earth where it is absolutely imperative that they make a 1,000 mile roundtrip in a single day while driving uphill on a 6% grade at 90 MPH _(both ways)_ while towing the equivalent of an entire household through hub-deep snow and there is absolutely NO WAY that can be done in an electric car -- EVER... Or similar ridiculous concepts.

I'll take your word for it that you are not among such deranged whackos. But please, do tell me the answer to that treasured question of American Road Trips when the time comes: _"Are we there yet?"_ Chances are, we may well have been there for years before you agree with me. But such is life.

Concerning the big questions of: _"Can you use an electric car every day?"_ or _"Can you drive cross country in an electric car?"_ Those queries have been answered by Tesla's cars for over 4-1/2 years now. There are fringe cases whereby a Ford Fiesta will not be appropriate for a job meant for a Ford F-350 Diesel Dually with an add-on 55-gallon tank too. That doesn't mean you can't drive the Ford Fiesta from Los Angeles to Miami or New York if you want. And it doesn't mean that an electric car is _'Not Ready for Prime Time'_ either. That is my point.

For certain shorter trips in certain geographic areas, an ICE or HYBRID will certainly be a little more convenient than EVs. Yes, even more so than a long range 200+ mile EV. More convenient perhaps, but not impossible to manage with an EV. And for enough people, not so inconvenient as to not be worth the effort. So, yeah, if you have a quick turnaround on a _'Day Trip'_ to a location without Superchargers on the way or Destination Chargers on site... You may prefer to take your hybrid. I warn you now, that doesn't mean you will.



Ron Miller said:


> Remember that this was NOT a complaint in my original post. In this thread on 100 kWh batteries, I was just commenting on the fact that if batteries that capacious are not available, and there are trips that would cause an owner excessive range anxiety, there are simple, low-cost solutions to those rare occasions.


OK.



Ron Miller said:


> Your rants have tried to make it sound like I'm preaching that EVs are good for nothing but around-home driving whereas almost nothing could be further from the truth.


Hmmm... Given what I have written, please take note of the first paragraph of yours that I read:
_"Range, for me, has little to do with how far I'm used to going without refueling. It has to do with the availability of fuel. I think I could probably make do with a range of 125 miles if I knew that there would always be an available charging station no matter where I wanted to refuel, just as there is for an ICE car. It's the desperate paucity of charging stations that mandates getting as much range as money can buy IF we want to drive our BEV on long trips away from home."_​
Do you see, here, what raised my ire? The points I make, I take on every time they are expressed. It doesn't matter who brings them up.

The first sentence is actually OK. But even with that, there are plenty of places in the U.S. where someone can run out of gas and have no immediate prospects to refuel.

But then you mention _'availability of fuel'_. Electricity is everywhere. Tesla purposely designed their cars to use it, anywhere it is found.

Then, you say you could _'make do with a range of 125 miles'_ and that is so far below the minimum threshold of 200 miles that Elon Musk has stated is a necessary standard that it seems almost an insult. Even the BOLT has a 238 mile range. If there is a gas station _'every 50 miles' (there aren't)_ then surely there is a power outlet _'every 125 miles'_ somewhere. No one in my family has carried a 5-gallon jerry can on a road trip in decades. Worst case, without cellular service, on average supposedly, you could just pick a direction and within 25 miles you'd come to a gas station, right? Rots-o-Ruck with that one.

This next part just goes over the same territory again with '_if I knew that there would always be an available charging station no matter where I wanted to refuel'. ~*sigh*~_ Even with an ICE vehicle, fuel is not necessarily going to be right there when you run out. Gas stations in small towns close late at night. Some have closed their doors for years. Some of those little burgs have only one or two exits from the main highway, you miss them, and you have no opportunity to turn around and go back.

Essentially, what you are saying is that you want to have the ability to assume you can fill up quickly at any exit you can reach, without planning ahead of time at all. Fine. Go ahead and say that. And don't buy an electric car until you can. But please note that practice is not possible with ICE cars today, and is as such an unfair comparison. So in that manner an EV is already _'just as there is for an ICE car'_. That's my point.

But then, the use of the phrase _'desperate paucity of charging stations'_ made me go cross-eyed with disbelief. It took me a long while to go back and read the whole of your post. So I took my time, read it fully _*THREE TIMES*_ before I replied. And then, I didn't even bother to quote you, or even mention your name. That, just to make sure that i didn't start a flame war of some sort.

OK. I get it. You have a certain opinion. Fine. I disagree with it. I didn't even mark your post as _'DISAGREE'_. There. Anything else?


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> Thank you very much for the context and explanation of your position.
> (...)
> With that in mind, I apologize if it seems I intended to start a _'flame war'_ because that was not the case. I was addressing the points made, not the individual.
> (...)
> OK. I get it. You have a certain opinion. Fine. I disagree with it. I didn't even mark your post as _'DISAGREE'_. There. Anything else?


Thanks also to you, @Red Sage , for reaching out to Ron, explaining your position and where you were coming from... another clear illustration of positions which will not automatically coalesce leading to the only sound thing: agree to disagree, then moving on... always remembering, as as I just wrote on another matter, that we ALL want the same thing, which is why we are here.
The rEVolution is underway, and we have Elon to thank for that... This cannot come fast enough! 
Peace, brothers !


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> They often point to some fringe case between the Middle of Nowhere and the Ends of the Earth where it is absolutely imperative that they make a 1,000 mile roundtrip in a single day while driving uphill on a 6% grade at 90 MPH _(both ways)_ while towing the equivalent of an entire household through hub-deep snow and there is absolutely NO WAY that can be done in an electric car -- EVER...


Yep, the favorite line with the naysayers in my social circle, "Well, tell me how that works out up in Marithon (Ontario)." Then ask them when was the last time they drove thru Marithon enroute to somewhere else......and all you hear is crickets.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

Mike said:


> Yep, the favorite line with the naysayers in my social circle, "Well, tell me how that works out up in Marithon (Ontario)." Then ask them when was the last time they drove thru Marithon enroute to somewhere else......and all you hear is crickets.


Exactly. That is why I insist on being Over-the-Top Optimistic -- because of the below-the-bottom pessimistic retorts. I figure we are ultimately speaking of energy storage here. Because EVs are so much more efficient than ICE, the available energy reserve does not have to be as great to match, then surpass them in range. And that will happen much sooner than most are aware.

If you have an actual semi-regular trip, something you do four, six, eight times a year, and it is not possible for currently affordable EV technology to manage in any acceptable level of convenience? I can certainly agree such vehicles will not work for you, personally. But when someone says that because of an obvious fringe case exists EVs are not viable for _'most people'_ that gets on my nerves.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Ok, guys, it's a beautiful Saturday, one day closer to your Model ≡ delivery, we're cooool...


----------



## Bobby Garrity (Jan 22, 2017)

So I'm going to get the largest battery pack I can afford (which probably won't be 100kWh, even if it exists). I have quite a few reasons for this.

First, I live in New York and go to school in North Carolina. So 10 times a year, I drive between those two places, which is about 850km. With my Century, I only have to fill up for gas once if I start the journey with a full tank and stop in the middle of the trip. Depending on Tesla's production of the Model 3, I might graduate before I even get the car. But otherwise I would like to only have to charge once on this trip. I accept that I probably will have to charge twice, but only once would be nice. So if I can get somewhat close to 500km range I would be very happy. I know that may be a lot, but with the current Supercharger network and the base range estimate of 215mi (346km), I would have to plan my trip entirely around the Superchargers. Obviously I know that the network will grow significantly by the time I get the car, but I would rather pick the point where I stop based on the food, not the availability of Superchargers. And yes, I know that there are other chargers, like Chademo, but I like to do this trip as quick as possible so I would prefer to not use anything but the fastest.

Second is charging speed. Since the Superchargers slow down as the battery fills up, a larger battery can charge for a greater distance over a given amount of time. This isn't a deal breaker, as Supercharger speeds are currently acceptable (and will be even more so if the Model 3 supports Supercharger V3), but as of now it is still slower than filling a car with gasoline, so it would be nice.

Third is battery degradation. I know that Tesla's batteries degrade at a remarkably slow rate, but I do intend to have my Model 3 for a very, very, long time. A larger battery will require fewer charge cycles over a given distance driven, so will therefore degrade slower.

I hope that it doesn't cost too much more for larger battery packs. I'll prioritize it over other options, but hopefully I won't have to sacrifice heated seats for more range. The small price difference between the Model S 90D and 100D makes me hopeful, and I look forward to seeing what the Gigafactory paired with the 2170 cells can do for cost reduction.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Bobby Garrity said:


> So I'm going to get the largest battery pack I can afford (which probably won't be 100kWh, even if it exists). I have quite a few reasons for this. (...)


Welcome to M3OC, Bobby! Understand your motivations & trust we'll know more about our choice in a few months. I do believe that 500 kms may be a stretch, though the new 100D configuration is announced at 335 miles (536 kms!). However, as I trust you know, depending on various conditions (weather, traffic, speed, etc...) you may not already get that much. Yet, though your point, I think it is reasonable to expect that charging times will be reduced on SC v3, which hopefully will be available on Model ≡... so even in the likely event you have to stop twice on your way to NC, you won't have to 'smell the roses' as long...  
Anyways, in the meantime, enjoy M3OC!


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

@Bobby Garrity -- If I might suggest?

Please peruse road trip data and logs written by current Tesla Owners, to get their ideas on such road trips. Generally, they find that though the stops for charging are longer than a _'splash & dash'_ for gasoline on banzai runs, they end up reaching their destination more rested.

Also, it seems that most of them do best by filling up only enough to make it to the next Supercharger, instead of trying to go max range and fewest possible stops. Because what happens then is that the _'one stop'_ ends up being VERY long.

Just understand that the pacing will be different, and so will be the experience overall. You may find that you enjoy it more than you currently expect.


----------



## Mike (Apr 4, 2016)

Bobby Garrity said:


> The small price difference between the Model S 90D and 100D makes me hopeful, and I look forward to seeing what the Gigafactory paired with the 2170 cells can do for cost reduction.


My dream (yes, I know, it's a dream, but still.....):

All the lessons learned from running 18650's for the past five years have been captured and exploited in the 2170's. The $100-per-kWh-of-storage barrier has been breached by the start of operations at Gigafactory 1.

The first part of the formal Model 3 reveal will actually be to announce that as of 01 July 2017, the Model S and X 100 will be the "smallest, base model capacity" , and sell for what the current 60 does today. The current 100 will now be 130, and sell for the current 100 price.

The second part of the Model 3 reveal will be the base model has an EPA range of 300 miles at the promised $35,000 base price point.

The third part of the Model 3 reveal will indicate an upgrade of 100 mile (160 km) EPA range increments (to 500 mile EPA range) will cost $5000.

So, in my fantasy world, a Model 3, with 500 mile/800 km EPA range, would sell for $45,000.

We can all dream........


----------



## Steve C (Sep 28, 2016)

Mike said:


> My dream (yes, I know, it's a dream, but still.....):
> 
> The first part of the formal Model 3 reveal will actually be to announce that as of 01 July 2017, the Model S and X 100 will be the "smallest, base model capacity" , and sell for what the current 60 does today. The current 100 will now be 130, and sell for the current 100 price.
> 
> ...


Alas it is a dream. Let's hope you aren't far off. There is enough possibility in your statement that it is posssible. Maybe not that cheap though.

I'm just so looking forward to being blown away at the final reveal.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

Steve C said:


> I am looking forward to a trip to PEI when I get my model 3. Truth is..... there are no superchargers on the way. We would have to really plan something out to make sure the trip went smoothly. I'm hoping they get some chargers out that way sooner than later but I don't see it on their 2017 upcoming stations.


You'll have to plant the trip for sure but the network is growing really fast and don't forget about CHAdeMO! Check plugshare.com for a map of locations

There are several trip planners out there, are a couple:
https://evtripping.com
https://evtripplanner.com/


----------



## Bobby Garrity (Jan 22, 2017)

Michael Russo said:


> Welcome to M3OC, Bobby! Understand your motivations & trust we'll know more about our choice in a few months. I do believe that 500 kms may be a stretch, though the new 100D configuration is announced at 335 miles (536 kms!). However, as I trust you know, depending on various conditions (weather, traffic, speed, etc...) you may not already get that much. Yet, though your point, I think it is reasonable to expect that charging times will be reduced on SC v3, which hopefully will be available on Model ≡... so even in the likely event you have to stop twice on your way to NC, you won't have to 'smell the roses' as long...
> Anyways, in the meantime, enjoy M3OC!


Thanks for the welcoming! I know 500km is a stretch, but I think that we can get somewhat close to that on Model 3 with a 75 or 80kWh battery. And if I have stop twice on that trip, it's not a big deal. In fact sometimes I stop for gas twice just so I could buy it in states with lower gas prices!



Red Sage said:


> @Bobby Garrity -- If I might suggest?
> 
> Please peruse road trip data and logs written by current Tesla Owners, to get their ideas on such road trips. Generally, they find that though the stops for charging are longer than a _'splash & dash'_ for gasoline on banzai runs, they end up reaching their destination more rested.
> 
> ...


I never thought of it quite like that. Like I said, I'm fine with charging twice, but I wouldn't want to charge more often than that. But again, a larger battery means a greater distance charged before the charge rate slows down.



Mike said:


> My dream (yes, I know, it's a dream, but still.....):
> 
> All the lessons learned from running 18650's for the past five years have been captured and exploited in the 2170's. The $100-per-kWh-of-storage barrier has been breached by the start of operations at Gigafactory 1.
> 
> ...


I have a dream today, that my 4 little children will be judged not by the color of their cars but by the content of their battery packs.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

Bobby Garrity said:


> I never thought of it quite like that. Like I said, I'm fine with charging twice, but I wouldn't want to charge more often than that. But again, a larger battery means a greater distance charged before the charge rate slows down.


When I travel cross country in an ICE vehicle, I plan for a certain number of stops for fuel. I can do that when I know the fuel economy and range of the vehicle I am driving. So, I would have a given number of stops that were optimum, and I would allow for one more than that in my planning. Over time I've come to realize that the more passengers there are, the more likely there will be at least two more stops than I had originally intended. And, if it turns out those passengers are children, elderly, infirm, alcoholics, or smokers? That usually adds even more stops. It's probably best that I drive alone.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Bobby Garrity said:


> I have a dream today, that my 4 little children will be judged not by the color of their cars but by the content of their battery packs.


4 little children already?! Man, you started young!


----------



## Topher (May 11, 2016)

Mike said:


> the Model S and X 100 will be the "smallest, base model capacity" , and sell for what the current 60 does today


If they can do that, they can and should make an even cheaper 60kWh model S and X (and 3). I have a dream that they will also make a Zoe competitor at 40 kWh, and less luxurious appointments. More Teslas for more people. The world is currently battery limited, getting more people into EVs is more important than meeting the whims of the rich.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Badback (Apr 7, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> When I travel cross country in an ICE vehicle, I plan for a certain number of stops for fuel. I can do that when I know the fuel economy and range of the vehicle I am driving. So, I would have a given number of stops that were optimum, and I would allow for one more than that in my planning. Over time I've come to realize that the more passengers there are, the more likely there will be at least two more stops than I had originally intended. And, if it turns out those passengers are children, elderly, infirm, alcoholics, or smokers? That usually adds even more stops. It's probably best that I drive alone.


Currently I prefer that my female companion do the driving, especially locally and especially in heavy traffic. On road trips, I am comfortable doing half of the long distance driving. The ≡ is going to change all of that due to Autopilot. Then we can both relax and have a comfortable trip.


----------



## TRON (Jan 25, 2017)

The answer to the question if 100kW is needed is:
Till fast charging isn't accelerated to 5 minutes it is needed for sure and even more if you're asking me.
The petrol heads will stop arguing the day an EV can charge in 5 min 500km of range or the day it will go 1000km on one charge in a speed of 100km/h.
My dream is to charge 1000km in 5 min and I know the human mankind can invent everything if they want; even flying to the moon which was seen by the people as impossible only 100 years ago ...
I'm reminding people saying "impossible" and "not needed" to me when I talked 1995 (less than 25 years ago) about taking a mobile computer with you being connected with others wherever you like over the mobile data network. The arguments: too heavy, too expensive ...
sounds familiar to the situation now


----------



## Bobby Garrity (Jan 22, 2017)

There you have it, folks. The Model 3 will not have a 100kWh option. At least not anytime soon.


----------



## TRON (Jan 25, 2017)

Even Elon is underestimationg his company himself now and then, the Roadster was set to 360km, in real life it was 400km and now you can get the 3.0 battery to get 650km. It is 2017 and I say to you that Model 3 will have 100kW/h maybe it will be named Model 3 100, welcome to quote me in 10 years )))


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Bobby Garrity said:


> 90?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about 95?


----------



## Bobby Garrity (Jan 22, 2017)

pjfw8 said:


> How about 95?


It's possible. I think 90 is a better guess.


----------



## Topher (May 11, 2016)

TRON said:


> 100kW/h


Nitpick: 100kWh (kiloWatts * hours). NOT kW/h. Energy = power * time.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Topher said:


> Nitpick: 100kWh (kiloWatts * hours). NOT kW/h. Energy = power * time.
> Thank you kindly.


Always a good reminder


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

Is a 100 kWh battery pack capacity really necessary? Yes. It is necessary to prove a point. It is necessary to move beyond the criticisms that are leveled against battery electric vehicles. It is necessary to obliterate so-called_ 'range anxiety'_. It is necessary for bragging rights. It is necessary to produce spectacular Performance results. It is necessary to tell all Tesla Naysayers to shut the [FLOCK] up. And, it is necessary to reach and then surpass that goal, using it as a stepping stone to reach greater heights for EV technology.

Because when, some day, it is possible to drive an electric vehicle further than a similarly priced ICE vehicle in a comfortable fashion, so that an unneeded_ 'buffer' _remains as a reserve, then victory can be claimed. And when the range of a gas guzzling ICE mobile has been sorely eclipsed by a wide margin, notice will be visited upon traditional automobile manufacturers that their time is waning and a change must be made, _SOON_er, not later. I imagine thst even a 90 kWh version of Model ≡ will have a superior range to the BMW M3. But being able to *topple others in the segment* would say a lot as well.

I think a 100 kWh capacity should be enough to allow the Model ≡ to reach an EPA rated range between 362 and 402 miles. That would demolish the BMW M3 and Cadillac ATS-V gas guzzlers. And the high end would be just barely over the Alfa Romeo Giulia.

The Infiniti Q50 RED Sport seems to have the highest fuel capacity in the segment, and thus shows a 440 mile range, which is rather impressive. I figure a 120 kWh battery pack capacity could take that down, with a range between perhaps 434 and 482 miles. I think a 135 kWh capacity would fare even better, achieving around 488 to 533 miles range.

I believe this is all possibly within reach now... But that it may not be revealed as such for a while. Surely within three-to-five years we will see Model ≡ breaking such milestones with apparent ease.


----------



## Twiglett (Feb 8, 2017)

Red Sage said:


> Is a 100 kWh battery pack capacity really necessary? Yes. It is necessary to prove a point. It is necessary to move beyond the criticisms that are leveled against battery electric vehicles. It is necessary to obliterate so-called_ 'range anxiety'_. .


I am hopeful that as they fill out the supercharger network, the requirement for larger batteries is diminished.
Realistically, an 80/85 would be plenty for 80% of most folks driving. Obviously not one of the "corner' cases but generally speaking.
I know, I've been driving around inside an 85 mile range for many years. 270 miles of range would get me 89% of my driving and the superchargers get me the other 10% - I'm just hoping I can avoid the last 1%


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

EV4Life said:


> I am hopeful that as they fill out the supercharger network, the requirement for larger batteries is diminished.
> Realistically, an 80/85 would be plenty for 80% of most folks driving. Obviously not one of the "corner' cases but generally speaking.
> I know, I've been driving around inside an 85 mile range for many years. 270 miles of range would get me 89% of my driving and the superchargers get me the other 10% - I'm just hoping I can avoid the last 1%


Yes. The capacity of and beyond 100 kWh is to address those 1% fringe cases where someone absolutely must do a quick turnaround after a day trip to the boonies wthout delay and completely off the beaten path. I strongly suspect the time will come when a 100 kWh capacity for electric vehicles seems as woefully inadequate as 640 KB RAM and a 10 MB hard drive do today for a personal computer.


----------



## Twiglett (Feb 8, 2017)

Red Sage said:


> Yes. The capacity of and beyond 100 kWh is to address those 1% fringe cases where someone absolutely must do a quick turnaround after a day trip to the boonies wthout delay and completely off the beaten path. I strongly suspect the time will come when a 100 kWh capacity for electric vehicles seems as woefully inadequate as 640 KB RAM and a 10 MB hard drive do today for a personal computer.


Ain't that the truth? When L2 is a dim and distant memory and 400KW charging is the "slow" version.
I really hope that batteries (supercapacitors?) of that kind of capacity can be retrofitted to the (by then) historic Teslas.


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> Is a 100 kWh battery pack capacity really necessary? Yes. It is necessary to prove a point. It is necessary to move beyond the criticisms that are leveled against battery electric vehicles. It is necessary to obliterate so-called_ 'range anxiety'_. It is necessary for bragging rights. It is necessary to produce spectacular Performance results. It is necessary to tell all Tesla Naysayers to shut the [FLOCK] up. And, it is necessary to reach and then surpass that goal, using it as a stepping stone to reach greater heights for EV technology.
> 
> Because when, some day, it is possible to drive an electric vehicle further than a similarly priced ICE vehicle in a comfortable fashion, so that an unneeded_ 'buffer' _remains as a reserve, then victory can be claimed. And when the range of a gas guzzling ICE mobile has been sorely eclipsed by a wide margin, notice will be visited upon traditional automobile manufacturers that their time is waning and a change must be made, _SOON_er, not later. I imagine thst even a 90 kWh version of Model ≡ will have a superior range to the BMW M3. But being able to *topple others in the segment* would say a lot as well.
> 
> ...


 Well said. I would only add that many drivers of ice vehicles also want long range. It's rarely a question of what we need, but what we want. Who needs an Aston Martin. (Me?)


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> Yes. The capacity of and beyond 100 kWh is to address those 1% fringe cases where someone absolutely must do a quick turnaround after a day trip to the boonies wthout delay and completely off the beaten path. I strongly suspect the time will come when a 100 kWh capacity for electric vehicles seems as woefully inadequate as 640 KB RAM and a 10 MB hard drive do today for a personal computer.


I agree, but I think it's not 1% but 10% for those of us who live in the middle of America.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Red Sage said:


> Yes. The capacity of and beyond 100 kWh is to address those 1% fringe cases where someone absolutely must do a quick turnaround after a day trip to the boonies wthout delay and completely off the beaten path.


You're marginalizing this scenario too much.

If I want to drive my kid up to Penn State to drop him off, it's a 350 mile round trip. I'm going to stay long enough to unload him & his crap, grab lunch, and head back home. That's not enough time for destination charging to make much of a difference. There are currently no superchargers along the route. It's not that much of a fringe case. Thousands of parents do this drive every year. And this isn't even out in the mid-west, where I'm sure it's worse.

More supercharging locations and faster supercharging will help, but we're not there yet, and it looks like it's going to be many years before we are.


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

@Red Sage Sorry, ICE-range is not relevant. My current daily driver from 1988 has a 65 liter diesel tank and a real life range of 1000 km = 625 miles. Modern cars can even do better. A van can do 2000 km. All irrelevant as a comparison.

Because that's not what we need to compete against. BEV's have the advantage of being fully charged each morning and the disadvantage of slow charging (compared to gas/diesel/H2). 
The solution is (it has been said before): 

enough range for daily drives + margin
faster charging for those seldom longer trips
enough fast charging facilities
full self driving capability, making drive + charging time no longer lost, but useful time
a mind switch by us all


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

MichelT3 said:


> a mind switch by us all


Electric cars have to be better in almost all aspects before the general public will switch their minds en masse. Longer range is still part of the solution.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

@garsh -- A round trip you make, perhaps four times a year? 1400 miles annually, with incidental mileage for dinner, shopping, sightseeing, or visiting might take that to 1500 miles. So, if you typically drive around 15,000 miles per year... OK. That comes to 10% of your annual mileage, not 1%. Gotcha.

But please understand, that was not my point. I was more speaking of frequency than distance covered. Sorry if that was not clear before.

I figure of all the times you go out and get into your car perhaps 1% of those would be with the intent of doing a_ 'quick turnaround'_. I think it has already been established that something like 30% of annual mileage is typically racked up in only 5% of vehicle usage on road trips. So, I was musing that 80% of road trips (where someone drives in one direction in excess of 150 miles) would be fine with Superchargers, and 20% of them would require a higher capacity battery pack.

Essentially, I'm saying there is a valid use case for what I perceive as three solutions to different situations. Widespread Superchargers on typical routes between major population centers; Faster Superchargers to satisfy those on a tight schedule or who lack patience in any form; and Higher battery pack capacities to meet the needs of those travelling off the beaten path. All are good solutions, and should be employed evenly, instead of foregoing one or two in favor of the other.

I believe that with the advance of storage technology making for affordably extensive range, the importance of charging speed and availability of public charging will diminish.

Sure, on many routes having Superchargers spaced every 120-to-180 miles or so will be sufficient to support the relative 'legacy' EVs of today that 'only' have around a 200 mile useable range. And, in places where there is extreme high speed traffic or potential for incredibly poor weather conditions, it may be prudent to space Superchargers every 80-to-90 miles. And in wide metropolitan regions where people range far and wide en masse it may be necessary for Superchargers to be spaced as close as ten-to-fifteen miles from each other.

But there is bound to come a time when the lowest range offered by Tesla is around 300 miles. Later that may increase to 400 miles. Later still it would reach the apparent Holy Grail of 500 miles. And those cars could leapfrog Supercharger locations or make those fringe case turnaround day trips with ease.

200 mile range is not the end, but the beginning.


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

I meant a mind switch how we look at range and charging. But I agree @garsh the general public needs more time. Alas.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

garsh said:


> More supercharging locations and faster supercharging will help, but we're not there yet, and it looks like it's going to be many years before we are.


if Tesla is able to match the 2017 Supercharger map, it looks like there are a couple new mid-PA locations being planned


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

garsh said:


> You're marginalizing this scenario too much.
> 
> If I want to drive my kid up to Penn State to drop him off, it's a 350 mile round trip. I'm going to stay long enough to unload him & his crap, grab lunch, and head back home. That's not enough time for destination charging to make much of a difference. There are currently no superchargers along the route. It's not that much of a fringe case. Thousands of parents do this drive every year. And this isn't even out in the mid-west, where I'm sure it's worse.
> 
> More supercharging locations and faster supercharging will help, but we're not there yet, and it looks like it's going to be many years before we are.


One thing that I think is very relevant here (at least for me) is that this entire Model 3 reservation/research/anticipation process has changed the way I look at this car purchase. I plan to have this car for at least 5 years. I have started to look at this as a two prong thought process. First, like I have with all other car purchases I have made, is what the car can do for me today. What advantages and disadvantages does this car represent with respect to viability, convenience/inconvenience, daily use etc? This was the sole barometer that I weighed all previous purchases on. With this in mind the Model 3 and the Tesla infrastructure appears to be able to meet or exceed the vast majority of my needs TODAY.

The second, and to me, more important thought process is what this car will be able to do 4 or 5 years from now...or even 2 or 1 year from now? What will auto pilot and autonomous driving look like then? What will the Supercharger network look like and how fast will it be able to charge? What will my home charging options look like then? What will this same car be able to do for me then that it maybe can't do when I take delivery? This was never even a consideration before when I bought a car. What I bought was what I had...period.

The Tesla model, its upgradability, and what it brings to long term car ownership is solely unique and is a game changer in my mind.

Others may disagree but I can now look forward to what improvements are down the line 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, etc. This car will only get better as time goes on.

Dan


----------



## Topher (May 11, 2016)

garsh said:


> More supercharging locations and faster supercharging will help, but we're not there yet, and it looks like it's going to be many years before we are.


Supercharger (area) density is increasing much faster than energy density in batteries. Cheaper and easier as well.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> if Tesla is able to match the 2017 Supercharger map, it looks like there are a couple new mid-PA locations being planned


Ooh, I hadn't checked that map in a while. I wish they'd let you zoom in a bit more. It does appear that they are planning to add three locations along I80. That would be pretty good for me - it's the second-shortest route for me to take to State College. Adding a charger near Altoona would have been better, but that doesn't appear to be in the plans.


Topher said:


> Supercharger (area) density is increasing much faster than energy density in batteries. Cheaper and easier as well.


Yep. Hopefully Tesla can stick to their 2017 Supercharger plans.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

garsh said:


> Yep. Hopefully Tesla can stick to their 2017 Supercharger plans.


I hope so too! the future SC map has been showing a couple Seattle area SCs for the last year + and still closest is about 90 miles away (the same one that's midway between Ptld/Sea. great to get to seattle, but not so much for spending a weekend driving around and making it back to the SC. So very much looking forward to seeing one or two of those SCs along I-5 between here and there.


----------



## pjfw8 (Apr 28, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> One thing that I think is very relevant here (at least for me) is that this entire Model 3 reservation/research/anticipation process has changed the way I look at this car purchase. I plan to have this car for at least 5 years. I have started to look at this as a two prong thought process. First, like I have with all other car purchases I have made, is what the car can do for me today. What advantages and disadvantages does this car represent with respect to viability, convenience/inconvenience, daily use etc? This was the sole barometer that I weighed all previous purchases on. With this in mind the Model 3 and the Tesla infrastructure appears to be able to meet or exceed the vast majority of my needs TODAY.
> 
> The second, and to me, more important thought process is what this car will be able to do 4 or 5 years from now...or even 2 or 1 year from now? What will auto pilot and autonomous driving look like then? What will the Supercharger network look like and how fast will it be able to charge? What will my home charging options look like then? What will this same car be able to do for me then that it maybe can't do when I take delivery? This was never even a consideration before when I bought a car. What I bought was what I had...period.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%. Whatever adjustments I may need to make as an early adapter will quickly be alleviated by improvements in the speed of charging, availability of charging and range. When I trade in my model 3 on a model Y, there will be a little need for compromise. I'm sure my needs and wants will be fully addressed. In time I will get my model 3 and enjoy it.


----------



## Ron Miller (Jul 31, 2016)

What's the difference in weight between a 60kWh battery pack and a 100kWh pack? I'm wondering what price I might pay in decreased economy in daily driving around home due to lugging a heavier battery everywhere I go. The big battery could be worth every penny when I need it, and I _do_ plan on buying the largest option that's available, regardless of price, but what is the added cost (downside) on the 350 days per year when I'm not on long road trips? 
Will that cost be something significant or just a trivial increase? Whatever it is, I'll pay it; just curious.


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Ron Miller said:


> What's the difference in weight between a 60kWh battery pack and a 100kWh pack? I'm wondering what price I might pay in decreased economy in daily driving around home due to lugging a heavier battery everywhere I go. The big battery could be worth every penny when I need it, and I _do_ plan on buying the largest option that's available, regardless of price, but what is the added cost (downside) on the 350 days per year when I'm not on long road trips?
> Will that cost be something significant or just a trivial increase? Whatever it is, I'll pay it; just curious.


Difference in curb weights for the various battery size Model S's should give us an idea as to what the spread would be, but finding accurate numbers for cars with identical equipment save for battery size is notoriously hard. Car and Driver shows the 70D they tested curbing at 4608 lbs, and a P90D at 4842 lbs with both appearing to have metal roofs, so a 234 lbs increase for the additional 20 kWh would seem like a good ballpark figure. Does that mean an additional 40 kWh will be costing you nearly 500 more lbs? Depends a lot on the energy density of the new 2170 cells, I'm going to assume they'll offer better bang-for-the-lbs. We shall see...


----------



## Ron Miller (Jul 31, 2016)

Interesting, Mad Hungarian. Thanks for that research.
Who knows if the difference in weight that C&D measured was solely due to the difference in batteries, but plugging those figures into the planner on EVTripping.com shows about a 7% decrease in economy on a hypothetical trip (as expressed in calculated watt-hours/mi). I do _not_ know that this would translate to an increase of 7% in my monthly electricity bill for auto charging (too many variables), but it might be a reasonable guestimate.
For someone driving 1,000 miles per month, that might be around US$2.50-3.00/month in extra cost due to carrying the heavier battery to and fro on a daily basis. To me, that's a trivial penalty to pay for having the extra range available when I need it. I was going to buy the biggest battery I could, regardless, but now I won't have to fret about a decrease in daily-driving economy.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Mad Hungarian said:


> Car and Driver shows the 70D they tested curbing at 4608 lbs, and a P90D at 4842 lbs with both appearing to have metal roofs, so a 234 lbs increase for the additional 20 kWh would seem like a good ballpark figure.


the "P" does have a larger rear motor than the standard dual motor setup though, so some of that weight would go toward the motor upgrade


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

Yes. Both a larger rear motor and a larger, more capable inverter.


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> the "P" does have a larger rear motor than the standard dual motor setup though, so some of that weight would go toward the motor upgrade


Good points Melinda and Red. I did try to find tested curb data for a 90D for a straight apples-to-apples comparison, but no dice. I've since hunted around for just the battery weights, and the 85 kWh complete with frame seems to come in at around 1200 lbs, with one claim being the frame represents 250 lbs of this. If we then take that and make the over-simplistic assumption that a 60 kWh pack would have an identical frame weight but 30% less cell/module weight we arrive at a reduction of 285 lbs, or 11 lbs per kWh. If we apply that same math to the 70D vs. P90D, we'd predict that the P90D should weigh 228 lbs more, which is very close to what the CD weight figures show. Now in the matter about the performance dual motor being larger than the standard dual, it's shocking how little these weigh in the overall scheme of things. The 362 hp motor in the early Model S is supposed to weigh 70 lbs. If we scaled that either way based on the smaller rear output of the 70D and the larger output of the P90D, then I don't think we'd see more than an additional 40 or 50 lbs or so for the bigger P90D rear motor. That would bring us back to a difference of around 190 lbs for the additional 20 kWh. So my completely back-of-the-envelope math here loosely predicts a additional weight penalty range of 9.5 to 11 lbs per additional kWh based on the old 18650 tech. If we add the fact that the inverter and a few other components are a little beefier on the 90D, it probably leans towards the lower number. But what this will mean in the new world of the Model 3's 2170 powered pack is anyone's guess.


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Ron Miller said:


> Interesting, Mad Hungarian. Thanks for that research.
> Who knows if the difference in weight that C&D measured was solely due to the difference in batteries, but plugging those figures into the planner on EVTripping.com shows about a 7% decrease in economy on a hypothetical trip (as expressed in calculated watt-hours/mi). I do _not_ know that this would translate to an increase of 7% in my monthly electricity bill for auto charging (too many variables), but it might be a reasonable guestimate.
> For someone driving 1,000 miles per month, that might be around US$2.50-3.00/month in extra cost due to carrying the heavier battery to and fro on a daily basis. To me, that's a trivial penalty to pay for having the extra range available when I need it. I was going to buy the biggest battery I could, regardless, but now I won't have to fret about a decrease in daily-driving economy.


Seems like a good estimate. Bottom line is if you can afford the likely substantial cost of what a 50%+ larger battery pack will command, that additional cost of lugging it around for the next few years won't be much more than a rounding error.
I for one am all in for the biggest bat, especially for those of us who live in cold winter climates, where unplugged cold starts and short trips can cut range in half. We Canucks will also be waiting a while for anything approaching the extensive network of SC's that the U.S. offers. There's also the lovely advantage of being able to pack a lot more miles quickly into the bigger pack when you travel. I know I as a noob I often catch myself thinking about road trips in terms of full range between charges, but the veterans know that getting that last 20% into the battery at the SC takes as long as the first 80%. Having the bigger pack means much less time waiting.


----------



## Badback (Apr 7, 2016)

You lost me where you said "turn right at the red barn".


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> One thing that I think is very relevant here (at least for me) is that this entire Model 3 reservation/research/anticipation process has changed the way I look at this car purchase. I plan to have this car for at least 5 years. I have started to look at this as a two prong thought process. First, like I have with all other car purchases I have made, is what the car can do for me today. What advantages and disadvantages does this car represent with respect to viability, convenience/inconvenience, daily use etc? This was the sole barometer that I weighed all previous purchases on. With this in mind the Model 3 and the Tesla infrastructure appears to be able to meet or exceed the vast majority of my needs TODAY.
> 
> The second, and to me, more important thought process is what this car will be able to do 4 or 5 years from now...or even 2 or 1 year from now? What will auto pilot and autonomous driving look like then? What will the Supercharger network look like and how fast will it be able to charge? What will my home charging options look like then? What will this same car be able to do for me then that it maybe can't do when I take delivery? This was never even a consideration before when I bought a car. What I bought was what I had...period.
> 
> ...


Dan, I'm with you in that I too am looking forward to the fact this will be the first car that improves itself as it goes. However I have to admit I also have some concerns that we may see much better versions of the car appear in only a year or two. I've read multiple times now that there's been so much pressure for them to freeze the design and get it rolling that they might be leaving a lot of capabilities on the table to be added at a later date. I'm less worried about the electronics and autonomous stuff, sounds like that's pretty sorted. More worried about missing out on even bigger batteries, motors, better seats, performance packages, suspension, etc. I'm looking at how quickly these things were upgraded on the S, big differences between the first cars and the '14's - 15's. I know, I know, that's the price we pay for being the early adopters. Just hoping it won't be completely upstaged in two years. Then again maybe demand at that point will still be outstripping supply, so at least the resale will be decent if one wants to trade up.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Mad Hungarian said:


> Dan, I'm with you in that I too am looking forward to the fact this will be the first car that improves itself as it goes. However I have to admit I also have some concerns that we may see much better versions of the car appear in only a year or two. I've read multiple times now that there's been so much pressure for them to freeze the design and get it rolling that they might be leaving a lot of capabilities on the table to be added at a later date. I'm less worried about the electronics and autonomous stuff, sounds like that's pretty sorted. More worried about missing out on even bigger batteries, motors, better seats, performance packages, suspension, etc. I'm looking at how quickly these things were upgraded on the S, big differences between the first cars and the '14's - 15's. I know, I know, that's the price we pay for being the early adopters. Just hoping it won't be completely upstaged in two years. Then again maybe demand at that point will still be outstripping supply, so at least the resale will be decent if one wants to trade up.


Well, I'm sure we will be quickly upstaged, just like Model S owners have been and Model X owners will be. That is the price of being a part of such a dynamic company.

The thing I keep reminding myself is that at the time I will need a new car there will be no other car in the world that I would rather buy. The tech, the look, the performance...nothing can touch it (barring any major surprises at the final reveal). Sure the car will be light years better in 2020, but I need a new car in 2018. I can live with what I WILL have next year...not what I MIGHT have in three.

Dan


----------



## Steve C (Sep 28, 2016)

Mad Hungarian said:


> Dan, I'm with you in that I too am looking forward to the fact this will be the first car that improves itself as it goes. However I have to admit I also have some concerns that we may see much better versions of the car appear in only a year or two. I've read multiple times now that there's been so much pressure for them to freeze the design and get it rolling that they might be leaving a lot of capabilities on the table to be added at a later date. I'm less worried about the electronics and autonomous stuff, sounds like that's pretty sorted. More worried about missing out on even bigger batteries, motors, better seats, performance packages, suspension, etc. I'm looking at how quickly these things were upgraded on the S, big differences between the first cars and the '14's - 15's. I know, I know, that's the price we pay for being the early adopters. Just hoping it won't be completely upstaged in two years. Then again maybe demand at that point will still be outstripping supply, so at least the resale will be decent if one wants to trade up.


Wow. Just wow.

It's like you are in my mind brother! You are me and I am you..... it's crazy. Lol

Excellent post. I feel exactly the same way but could not have expressed it better.

I sometimes think that I might delay delivery if there are rumours etc.... my excitement might get the better of me.


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> Well, I'm sure we will be quickly upstaged, just like Model S owners have been and Model X owners will be. That is the price of being a part of such a dynamic company.
> 
> The thing I keep reminding myself is that at the time I will need a new car there will be no other car in the world that I would rather buy. The tech, the look, the performance...nothing can touch it (barring any major surprises at the final reveal). Sure the car will be light years better in 2020, but I need a new car in 2018. I can live with what I WILL have next year...not what I MIGHT have in three.
> 
> Dan


Good way to look at it. I will admit this is a really odd sentiment for me, since I've been so little concerned with how current my car is technology-wise that I actually haven't bought a new one in 27 years. And I never gave it a second thought as the only real big year-to-year progress that's happens now in the ICE world is largely user-interface related, which I could car less about. To me it's about performance and the hands-on quality of the driving experience, which has pretty much peaked with ICE. With EV's though I suspect we're on the verge of a technological "arms race" the speed of which has not been seen in the automotive world since the 60's. I suppose I'll need to start looking at the 3 in a few years the way I now see my 4 year old TV and 3 year old smart phone... hopelessly outdated but still doing a great job at what I bought them for.
I now promise to quit wringing my hands over this and get back to our regularly scheduled program, whether the big boy battery will be worth it (the answer remains yes ).


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Steve C said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> It's like you are in my mind brother! You are me and I am you..... it's crazy. Lol
> 
> ...


I had momentarily considered acting rationally and waiting it out to see if juicier stuff comes out in year two or three. But that ain't happening. I slept in a tent for two days in the hopes it would shave a week or two off my delivery time, never mind months. I know the minute that "Please Configure" message arrives, after screaming like a 7 year old at Chuckie Cheese I'm going to melt the keyboard in my haste to tick the boxes off and press "send".


----------



## Rick59 (Jul 20, 2016)

@Mad Hungarian, couldn't agree more. The time from email to order will be measured in minutes, not hours or days. At 71, this is either my last car or the last car my family will let me drive. Luckily, my dog still loves my driving.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Rick59 said:


> At 71, this is either my last car or the last car my family will let me drive.


Definitely spring for the self-driving option. Then you can continue to enjoy it after you've become a menace to society.


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

Rick59 said:


> @Mad Hungarian, couldn't agree more. The time from email to order will be measured in minutes, not hours or days. At 71, this is either my last car or the last car my family will let me drive. Luckily, my dog still loves my driving.


It will be the first car that will drive you. Haha!


----------

