150+ kWh S/X battery pack

150+ kWh S/X battery pack

I am going to stick my neck out and predict that Tesla will release at least a 150kWh battery pack for the S/X using the new 21-70 batteries. The Powerwall2 and Powerpack2 shows that Tesla can package twice the previous capacity in a given volume. Although Elon has said that they do not see the need for it, I believe that there is a premium price market for it, just as there is for the P100D. It also allows Tesla to brag about now having a range equivalent to, or better, than comparable ICE cars. | 6 november 2016

Not much of a gamble, Bernie.

If they keep the same battery pack dimensions as they now have, my estimate is that they can get up to 20-22% more capacity than the 90 kWh version that uses 7104 18650 cells. Mainly this is because they have the headroom for the taller cells, so that despite not being able to pack in as many 21700s because of the larger diameter, they will gain capacity due to the 33% increase of capacity per cell. Barring changes in electrolyte recipe and/or electrode composition and design, the existing technology tops out at about 110 kWh with the 21700s. Using the Powerpack to support your case may not be relevant as the form factor constraints may be entirely different.

Your 150 kWh prediction will require altered chemistry and/or different form factor for the case. If you allow those variables into the mix, then all bets are off because then anything could be done to increase capacity. But even if you could squeeze in 7,104 21700s into the existing case (which I don't think is possible), the capacity tops out at 1/3 more than 90 kWh or 120 kWh max.

johndoeeyed | 6 november 2016

You have contradicted yourself with "Not much of a gamble, Bernie." and then following it with "Your 150 kWh prediction will require altered chemistry and/or different form factor for the case" and "the capacity tops out at 1/3 more than 90 kWh or 120 kWh max."
I am talking about the chemistry of the 21-70 cells being produced this year.
I have done the calculations and 150kWh is the min, not the max.
Elon has also said in the past (for the old batteries) that they will not be doing such a thing.

bp | 6 november 2016

Compared to ICEs, the Model S and X are more expensive - especially when adding the cost of AP 2.0 and the likely price increase for the 100D (which could be as much as a $16K price increase, compared to several months ago).

Since the supercharger network is spaced to support 60s, there's a point of diminishing returns once the battery packs get large enough (100?) to always support the fastest charging (to 80% or below).

For road trips using the supercharger network, (assuming you can always charge to 80% or less to reach the next charger or destination), the only significant advantage of a larger battery pack is on the distance to the first supercharger - after that, charging times are the important factor - not battery capacity.

If using 2170 batteries would allow Tesla to produce a 100 battery pack for significantly lower cost than using the current batteries - then Tesla needs to do this - as quickly as they can - and bring the prices back down closer to the luxury ICEs.

Seems more likely Tesla will start focusing on price/weight reductions (and possible performance improvements) than continuing to build larger and larger battery packs (which require longer and longer charging times)...

johndoeeyed | 6 november 2016

Your post does not address the reasons why I believe Tesla will introduce a large battery pack.
Also, the larger the battery pack, for the same cells, the higher power can be delivered to the motors.
Also, the larger the battery pack, for the same cells, the higher power can be used for charging.

Johnn_hardy | 7 november 2016

There is another variable here and that is weight. Why in the world would it be a good idea to increase the weight of the car significantly (going from 100 kWh to 150 kWh for example) if that extended range is not going to be required and continually used? It just redices the range per kWh.

johndoeeyed | 7 november 2016

I have given you 4 reasons already.
A 5th is that there are times when the extra range will be used. Supercharging is not available everywhere.

zanegler | 7 november 2016

Trailer towing anything substantial long distances is not currently feasible with the spacing between Superchargers, so towing would be one great reason for the additional range. I do see that there is a balance between weight / range / cost and I have not taken the time to correlate all of these variables, but I think I am fine leaving that to Telsa. Currently, I can only use my MX for towing my boat to local lakes. | 7 november 2016

Show us your numbers, Bernie. You should be working for Tesla, if you can squeeze that many of the existing chemistry in 21700 form factor into the existing box. Can't be done.

Bighorn | 7 november 2016

Don't hold your breath. He never provides requested evidence or data. He'll say he answered it somewhere else and it's up to you to find it. And then you become either a troll or a bully when you call him on his subterfuge.

Silver2K | 7 november 2016

I heard bully!

did someone call?

Jcollins | 7 november 2016

Personally, I think the timing is about right for a bigger battery pack (150 sounds about right) but aimed at the pickup or delivery van type vehicle. Apparently Duke Energy is looking for such a vehicle for their fleet. why not make it a Tesla?

johndoeeyed | 7 november 2016

What numbers are you after? What do you dispute as being correct?
PS: You did not respond regarding your contradictory statements of "Not much of a gamble, Bernie." and "the capacity tops out at 1/3 more than 90 kWh or 120 kWh max.". You cannot have it both ways...or can you?

You are a troll with a longstanding history. I provide evidence all the time, but the likes of yourself have shown that you are incapable of understanding it. All you can do is troll. How about you make me a promise that when I provide evidence this time you will not troll me again. That's all you have to do. Make a promise and keep it.

McLary | 8 november 2016

I think we all should make doehead a promise, not to click on any thread he starts, ever again. Idiot!

johndoeeyed | 8 november 2016

I would appreciate if you would make that promise.
You can start with this thread. | 8 november 2016

I'm guessing you misinterpreted my "Not much of a gamble".description. That was based on the fact that you left all the design parameters unspecified which would not then be much of a gamble, design parameters meaning battery cell composition, battery pack housing dimensions and so on.

You still are shy about numbers so I will provide some.

The original 85 kWh pack holds 7104 18650 cells.
The 90 kWh pack also has 7104 18650 cells, enhanced with silicon added to the anodes.
JB Straubel stated that the Tesla design engineers did a remarkable job to cram more 18650 cells into the same house to realize a capacity of 100 kWh. That about 11% more cells or about 7885 18650 cells +/-

The 21700 cells occupy 1.33 times the volume of the 18650 cells and presumably have 1/3 more capacity assuming the same chemistry. 2/3 of 7885 is 5257. Let's say they can work miracles and stuff 20% more than that number of 21700s into the case. That's 6308. 4/3 times 6308 = 8711 equivalent 18650s or 110 kWh. That's not close to 150 kWh.

Your numbers, please?

David N | 8 november 2016

Here we go again......
As Rambo said.........let it go

jkhogg | 8 november 2016

I live in Edmonton, Canada and although there is a couple of destination chargers here, there are no supercharger stations. I will have to charge at home and would love to be able to visit family in the country where there are also no chargers. I don't know if they have a 220 outlet and don't think a 110 would be able to charge the battery quickly enough for me to return the next morning. I would love to see a battery capable of 700 + km's. Regardless I love Tesla and Elon Musk's vision and will be purchasing the model 3 with the longest range available.

johndoeeyed | 8 november 2016

I said 150kWh+. I do not need to design the pack to make that statement, just as you did not design the pack to make your 120kWh max statement.
I was not shy about the numbers. I asked you which numbers you wanted. You are being deliberately disingenuous.
My numbers a a comparison of the Powerwall1 and Powerwall2 change in capacity with the new cells and packaging. 6.4kWh to 14kWh in roughly the same form factor.

johndoeeyed | 8 november 2016

@David N
If you have nothing useful to contribute to the thread, then don't post, or don't read it. There are thousands of people on this forum. Your personal opinion is nothing special, and certainly not more worthy than any other opinion, and even more certainly does not deem having thousands of people potentially read it.

brando | 8 november 2016

Hint to Canadian. A 150Kw would take twice as long as a 75Kw to charge.
At least try to run the numbers before you panic. OR contact Tesla, when you find out what power is available at your destination to help you calculate. RV park might be best place to re-charge?

300 miles with a 240v 48amp US current. in about 9 hours.
You could start investigation by going to Tesla home page, Model S in the title bar at the top, then scroll down to Charging Estimator. Is Canada AC power grid exactly same as US? I don't know.

You might also try | 8 november 2016

You are one funny guy, Bernie.

You "stuck your neck out" but have nothing to substantiate your prediction?

That's OK with me. It's your thread. You can fantasize to your heart's content.

This thread is not interesting without some substantiation for your "prediction". Otherwise, there is no basis for it and it is just some wishful thinking.

By the way the Powerwall box is big enough to hold over 90 kWh worth of cells. Going from 7 to 13.5 kWh is more a marketing change than an engineering feat. Not relevant to the car's battery box that is stuffed.

brando | 8 november 2016

"By the way the Powerwall box is big enough to hold over 90 kWh worth of cells."

I don't see how, unless cells have doubled in kWh in just one year. But look for yourself

johndoeeyed | 8 november 2016

I have said why I statet150+ kWh. I was explicit.
You have also now confused the Powerwall with the Powerpack, which are two quote different products.
You have also now shown yourself to be both ignorant and careless as well.
Please bother to inform yourself before posting again on this thread.

McLary | 8 november 2016

Got that George. You have been ordered not to post on this thread! Idiot!

johndoeeyed | 8 november 2016

I guess that means you think George will not bother to inform himself before posting.
You have repeatedly shown yourself to be incapable of informing yourself before posting.

maximapolak | 9 november 2016

I believe they're going with the same business plan as apple.

Roll things out slowly to make more money and people will upgrade with new releases.

Can't blame them. | 9 november 2016

Poor old Bernie, invective in lieu of information. You've got your wish. Bye, bye.

johndoeeyed | 9 november 2016

I did give information, so I will repeat it for you:
"My numbers a a comparison of the Powerwall1 and Powerwall2 change in capacity with the new cells and packaging. 6.4kWh to 14kWh in roughly the same form factor."
"You have also now confused the Powerwall with the Powerpack, which are two quote different products."

You have confused the Powerpack and Powerwall, which are quite different products, with each other. That is not invective, it is the truth. Please inform yourself better next time. | 10 november 2016

Wrong again, Bernie, Check the dimensions of the Powerwall box here: | 10 november 2016

Oops, I forgot to go away.

johndoeeyed | 10 november 2016

Wrong about what?
I am not wrong.

McLary | 12 november 2016

PW1 52" x 34" x 7" 220lbs

PW2 44" x 29" x 5.5" 265lbs

Bighorn | 12 november 2016

That's not the battery footprint

johndoeeyed | 12 november 2016

Please bother to do the math and you will see you are supporting my statement.

McLary | 13 november 2016

I did not say I opposed your statement. Unlike some on these forums, I only wish that the facts are stated. Everyone is then free to come to their own conclusions.

McLary | 13 november 2016

Obviously the PW2 incorporates cells with much more energy capacity than PW1. The smaller footprint with an increase in available power, implies that the 21700 cells are in use. However, those cell are not currently produced in Nevada. There are, however, Panasonic/Sanyo 21700 cells available on the market.

The weight difference is intriguing. Deducting for some materials and the inverter, still implies that there is some increase in power density, beyond the change in form factor. It also implies that the cooling system is far more efficient than the original.

johndoeeyed | 13 november 2016

You are now being two-faced.
You just posted "I did not say I opposed your statement."
But your first post on this thread was "I think we all should make doehead a promise, not to click on any thread he starts, ever again. Idiot!"
Those two statements are incompatible.
I expect that the truth is that you now realise that what I posted was valid, never deserved your original reply, but you do not have the fortitude to say so.

McLary | 14 november 2016

The only thing here that is incompatible is you, with any breathing creatures. You actually have the nerve to criticize me for agreeing with something you said.

It doesn't change the fact that this thread, like virtually every thread you start, containing your predictions, is a total waste of time and space. Your childish need to parade some imagined level of insight and intelligence is simply pathetic.

Agreeing with one single thing, does not mean I agree with an entire thesis. Tesla has stated that the 100kWh battery is the current limit anticipated, but that doesn't stop your from prattling on and on and on and on....

How is that car battery/home backup going?


johndoeeyed | 14 november 2016

I have no issue with you can criticising what I post, but you should have valid evidence, and you do not. You also engage in puerile insults, as you have once again done. Not only that, but you take self-contradictory positions and seem not to care. I have posted why I believe Tesla will release a 150kWh+ battery, the Powerwall increases in density more than support my statement, and the 30% increase in cell density specified by JB Straubel supports it. You have nothing but your invective.
Now, if you would like to make a bet that Tesla will NOT do as I say by the end of 2017, then email me privately at I will most likely accept your offer. Of course you will not do so, because you actually do not trust that I am incorrect.

EcLectric | 16 november 2016

Is that you, Napoleon Dynamite?