Model X range lottery

Model X range lottery


Let's start guessing how far the Model X will go on a full charge.

Let's see--hmmm, it will be higher and longer than the S--strike one
It will be heavier than the S.--strike two
It will exhibit more drag than the S --strike three.

If they use the same battery configuration as the S, I'm guessing maybe 200 miles.

What do you think?

jjs | 2 juin 2014

OK. I'll play. I'm assuming your 200 miles was for a range charge using the 85 Kwh pack? If not please clarify.

I can't image the large battery pack, the 85 KwH pack, would go less than 250 when range charging. Here is my reasoning.

1) The X will be released in two battery pack variants, the 60 and the 85. I can't believe Tesla would release the 60 with a range less than 200. It seems to be a magic number for them. That is not much lower than a 60 on the S.
2) I'm not sure that it will be heavier. Improvements in energy density of the current Li-Ion batteries that they use should allow for 85Kwh storage with less weight. I also think they will implement other weight saving measures.
3) If the overall drag goes up, it may not go up as much as one might think. Overall drag has a number of components, cross sectional area and coefficient of drag being the most salient in this analysis. No question that the cross sectional area of the X will be larger than the S, however let's not count out Tesla's ability to edge the coefficient of drag down from .24 to .23 or .22. This may well offset larger cross sectional area. As an example, if car manufacturers could get the rule changed mandating side mirrors and replace them with cameras it would reduce the coefficient of drag 5% (Elon's statement.) which alone would take the coefficient of drag from .24 to .23.

I would guesstimate the range of the X with an 85Kwh battery pack to have a 250-260 range charge.

I also think Tesla should give an X to the person who is closest. :)

Brian H | 2 juin 2014

What is the line from Jimmy the Greek?

jjs | 2 juin 2014

Dating yourself Brian.

Red Sage ca us | 2 juin 2014

Going 'ALL IN' with Two Pair...

This exercise is complicated somewhat by the fact it seems that the EPA officially publishes the range of EVs at maybe only about 90% of what they achieve, to sort of hedge their results against manufacturing variances.

I believe Tesla Motors' goal will be to have a minimum range that is definitely be more than 200 miles, as rated by the EPA. That is to say, the 60 kWh and 85 kWh battery pack capacities shown on the website are placeholders for that which is to come. I believe that ultimately, Tesla Model X will end up having the 85 kWh version as the minimum and that a 100+ kWh version will debut as the top shelf release.

Keep in mind that coefficient of drag is relative to the shape of the subject at hand. It will be the same whether it is on a 1/32, 1/16, 1/8 or full scale model. A lot depends upon the aerodynamics, but just as much depends upon weight borne and battery capacity.

200 divided by 0.90 comes to 222 miles. That's a bit close for comfort at 60 kWh, but possibly achievable as mentioned above by jjs if the mirrors can be done away with in favor of rear-view cameras instead. I wouldn't be surprised if the cameras moved, or were supplemented, by having them in the sidemarker medallions ahead of the doors instead of, or in addition to, the stubby stalks.

They might try a different tactic if the mirrors cannot be eliminated. Possibly only an incremental increase from 60 kWh to 70 kWh for the low end, 85 kWh to 95 kWh for the next step initially. I still believe there must be a 100+ kWh battery pack in the offing on both Model X and Model S, to fully make use of dual motors in AWD mode.

If this is done by adding more batteries, you add more weight, of course. That weight penalty will have to be balanced to find the proper ratio of benefit versus range and price. Since it is a larger vehicle, it will weigh more, by default. Tesla will want to make it at least as safe as the Model S, so as to keep its reputation in that regard, and the structures needed to achieve that rating will also add weight. The decision has already been made to have dual motors in all the Model X releases, and that in turn increases weight as well.

That brings us back to battery capacity. I think the result would be something like this:
60 187
70 218
85 239
95 267
100 280
110 308
120 337
135 379
As usual, I could be wrong. It really depends upon what Tesla wants to achieve with this round of product revisions. They may be able to just get by with a 70 kWh and 95 kWh Model X stable. But why do that, when you can excel and astound?

Checking my hand against the flop and turn, I see... A pair of motors, at least a pair of battery packs... Will there be three of a kind on the battery pack river, making a full house? I'll take that bet. ALL IN.

Red Sage ca us | 2 juin 2014


As usual, I could be wrong. It really depends upon what Tesla wants to achieve with this round of product revisions. They may be able to just get by with a 70 kWh and 95 kWh Model X stable. But why do that, when you can excel and astound?

Checking my hand against the flop and turn, I see... A pair of motors, at least a pair of battery packs... Will there be three of a kind on the battery pack river, making a full house? I'll take that bet. ALL IN.

Jolinar | 2 juin 2014

"If this is done by adding more batteries, you add more weight, of course. That weight penalty will have to be balanced to find the proper ratio of benefit versus range and price"

Isn't 85kWh that ideal compromise? At least, Elon said it once... | 2 juin 2014

If they start building MX with a different battery pack, then they will have to change the frame, making it longer and heavier. Adding more batteries, I believe , would add range, despite the added weight but I'm thinking that economies of scale will be a factor. By sticking with the current 85 kW pack they get an advantage for both MS and MX. The two models would share not only the box of batteries but also the cooling hardware and software and the charging circuitry and software. I'm thinking that 85 kW will be the battery out of the box. With a higher profile, more weight, and two motors, this adds up to less than the rated 265. There is a way to increase the energy capacity of the existing battery box by changing from cylindrical cells to rectilinear cells without changing the outside dimensions. You could get about 30% more energy capacity that way at the expense of 200-300 lbs of added weight. Things like phones and tablets use such batteries so it wouldn't be a great leap but, again, interest in scale and schedule would suggest sticking with the cylinders.
I'm still thinking 200 miles or so.
Elon could get his family to Tahoe on a full charge--just. He may make that compromise in the interests of economy and schedule.

cantcurecancer | 2 juin 2014

All lithium-ion batteries that are rectangular in shape get far worse energy density than 18650s. Any gains you get in maximizing area will be offset with worse batteries. Plus if you maximize space, you will have to totally redesign the cooling system.

My money's on advancements in battery chemistry that might give a voltage boost.

Plus, I thought they said that they could add more batteries to the Model S platform but they didn't because of diminishing returns?

Red Sage ca us | 2 juin 2014

JB Straubel recently confirmed that there will not be a change in the shape of the individual cells at all. They will remain cylindrical, holding the same 18650 form factor. He said that advances in capacity will come in terms of the solution used, not the shape, of the batteries. | 3 juin 2014


And here's what the MX page says about battery choices:
Battery Options
Model X will be offered with a 60 or 85 kWh battery.


holidayday | 5 juin 2014

For the Model X, I'll assume a 10% hit on mileage compared to the Model S. (Increased weight and larger drag amount)
For the 85 KWh battery, 265-26.5 = 238.5 will probably rate as 238.
For the 60 KWh battery, 208-20.8 = 187.2 will probably rate as 187.

Someone, check my math :)

If you throw 7 people and a bunch of stuff in, weighing it down even more, make it a 15% hit in mileage.
85 KWh = 265 - 39.75 = 225.25 ~= 225
60 KWh = 208 - 31.2 = 176.8 ~= 176

Because I always assume the EPA will round down. | 5 juin 2014

Good math

Good guess

I'm wondering if running two motors for all wheel drive will further reduce the rated mileage???

I have suggested that they include a software option to run two wheel drive on the guess that will improve economy.

I will give a Tesla jacket to the person who gets closest to the 85 kWh EPA-rated range.

vandacca | 5 juin 2014

@georgehawley, Elon Musk was quoted as saying that they managed to come up with a design/solution with 2 motors that keeps the efficiency almost exactly the same as a single motor.

Otherwise, I'm hoping that (a) with some advances in battery materials, (b) along with lighter materials in the construction of the Model-X and (c) possibly increasing the battery pack (e.g. 90kWh), the range isn't going to be significantly less than the Model-S. But that may just be my wishful thinking.

--Dan | 5 juin 2014

Mr. Musk is a Model X optimist...
If they reuse the MS motor, the second motor would have to be 100% efficient.
Not going to happen.
More drag, more weight, same energy = <265 mile rating.
But make a guess and enter the lottery.

SamO | 5 juin 2014

8% battery improvements per year without any breakthrough. Perhaps Tesla will be able to announce an increase in battery size with the new models.

Discontinue the S60 and give customers 85 for the same price.

Offer swap so anyone can purchase the upgrade.

aljjr2 | 5 juin 2014

Interesting technical chat. The X site says "all wheel Drive", It seems it may be possible (electronically), on-demand instead of Full-time all wheel drive. Most will never need all wheel drive, except when needed for snow or off-road or when the exceptional torque in the performance is required. Therefore, the motors may not necessarily be engaged all the time. I would imagine that could be handled by software. So the calculations may only be similar range to the S, less the additional drag/weight.

Iowa92x | 5 juin 2014

The X won't have a 60 kWh pack, because Tesla won't produce an $80k ride that puts down less than 200 miles. We are talking Tesla here, not GM.

As Red Sage suggests above, the 85 kWh battery will be standard and good for maybe 220 - 250 miles. Elon said a larger battery is coming within a year (could be S, X, likely both), my guess is 100 kWh. That would give the X greater range than the 85 S.

Elon also said the duel motors are highly efficient and expect a 12 to 15% decrease over RWD. Cameras are currently illegal to replace side mirrors, so forget that until motor vehicle rules catch up to HD night vision.

Make sure to listen in on every Tesla investor call and watch Elon's town halls. He drops golden biscuits of info, I smile for this company's future.

vandacca | 6 juin 2014

Okay, here is my official entry into the "guess the Model-X mileage on a full charge". It is going to be >= 265miles. I wouldn't be surprised if the EPA rating is actually ~285-300.

Having said that, I will add a few caveats. There are many variables (e.g. 60kWh vs 85kWh packs), so my range guess is for Tesla's largest battery pack (it may be greater than 85kWh) and most efficient configuration/options.

I think Elon was shooting for a 300 mile range on the Model-S and he was miffed that the EPA under-cut him. I think he is going to shoot for an EPA 300 mile range on the Model-X and come close to reaching it.

Elon has said on a number of occasions that they can engage the second motor in the order of milli-seconds (or less), so I suspect that the 2nd motor will mostly lie dormant and used only when needed, thereby not really reducing the range much (only by the added weight). I also think they will find other efficiencies in heating/cooling, electronics, aero-wheels, etc that will help. Who knows, maybe they'll add a solar panel option.

At the very least, I expect that the Model X will have the exact same range as the Model-S.


Red Sage ca us | 6 juin 2014

In terms of how the motors will operate, that will be determined based upon varying factors. You will likely be able to select:
AUTO (Default)
These would be available from the control center, or selectable on dash through the steering wheel controls. The shifter stalk will still be 'P-R-N-D'.

It is important to understand that under none of these conditions would the vehicle be 100% Rear or Front Wheel Drive. The system would always be balancing power to some degree. Selecting the different modes would just select a particular range of bias, one way or the other.

I believe that in AUTO mode, the car will dynamically shift output from the front or rear motors as needed to maintain maximum traction.
At launch, it will be primarily Rear Wheel Drive, with Front Wheel Drive assist. Perhaps ranging from a 60%-40% to an 80%-20% split, dependent upon road conditions, as determined by the Traction Control System.
At regular surface street speeds, 15-45 MPH, it will remain All Wheel Drive.
At highway speeds, or when Cruise Control is activated, the system will revert to a Front Wheel Drive profile for control, and 'fuel efficiency' at constant speeds.

vandacca | 6 juin 2014

@Red Sage, I don't remember where I saw/read this fact, but it's my understanding that the two motors are not equal. One motor is larger and more powerful than the other. Not sure how that factors into your power distribution profile.


Red Sage ca us | 6 juin 2014

Vandacca: Correct.

The front motor would be less powerful than the rear. The front drive system would also have a higher gear ratio. So at highway speeds it would bear the brunt of the effort to keep the vehicle at speed, while drawing less power from the battery, thereby increasing range.

The rear motor, being more powerful, would be the primary motivator from a dead top, at low speed, in passing maneuvers, or while towing.

Olof | 6 juin 2014

I have heard that the AWD will have even lower energy consumption than RWD. The reason is what Red Sage writes, that they will be geared differently so that they can operate in their most efficient rpm ranges more often.

I guess 241 Miles EPA with 85kWh.

Iowa92x | 6 juin 2014

Olof, the motors may be more efficient but the overall X will be less efficient than S. 10 to 15% loss. Elon even said so.

Olof | 6 juin 2014

Iowa, agreed. That's why I guessed 241 EPA miles for the X instead of 265 for the S | 6 juin 2014

15% less than 265 would be a rated range of about 225.
10% less than 265 would be about 239.

241 is a little on the optimistic side, I think.

keithndeborah | 6 juin 2014

85 kWh EPA rated = 235 mi
@georgehawley, I'll take a large jacket as they run a half size big. | 7 juin 2014

If you are right, you can have any size you want.
But only one--Keith or Deborah.
I agree that there will various sources of pressure to have an 85 kWh MX range in the same ballpark as the MS at least. I just don't see how they can pull it off, if they have done a good job implementing the MS. I also don't see any significant battery improvements between now and the end of the year.
Even so, I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

keithndeborah | 8 juin 2014

The jacket will be mine, but she'll get the X (after I get my S). She's got a Leaf to keep her electrified for the next couple of years.


Brian H | 9 juin 2014

Elon was asked about using higher output cells, near the end of the SH meeting. Basically indicated there are lower hanging fruit in upping efficiency, and costs in basic upgrades of cooling for using (e.g.) 4000 mA cells, so that won't be done soon.

I expect the 60 kWh MX to have limited appeal.

Red Sage ca us | 6 juillet 2015


Geez. Just how wrong was I, anyway?

vperl | 6 juillet 2015

As usual, totally.

You are forgiven, mostly. | 6 juillet 2015


Thanks for dredging up this ancient history, my first post, I think.

I am still good for the jacket.

Elon said 10% less range than Model S. If his basis was S85, that's 239.5 miles.

If it was S85D, 247.5 miles.

Olof at 241 and you at 239 appear to be the closest. Our Iowa friend at 10-15 % is in the ballpark but needs to give a number. Still time to do that.

I didn't appreciate at the time that internal losses are reduced when load splitting between two drive units but my guess looks to be way off

But I already have two jackets. :-))

vperl | 9 juillet 2015

Less than 300 US miles | 9 juillet 2015

@vperl: not good enough. You need to pick a number.

ken | 9 juillet 2015

@george, OK my guess is 275. I think there are going to be other improvements that will make up for the weight and air dynamics.

Ankit Mishra | 9 juillet 2015

Same as Model S. | 10 juillet 2015

@ankimishra: would that be S85D?

aesculus | 10 juillet 2015

I am going out there and say 280.

Red Sage ca us | 10 juillet 2015

The earliest projections of Model S range were that it would go 320 miles on a single charge. With the Toyota Mirai HFCEV getting a 320 mile EPA rating for range, it would be spectacular if the much larger, roomier, faster Model X could match or surpass that amount. That would almost certainly require a battery pack capacity well over 85 kWh.

vandacca | 10 juillet 2015

Red, those original Model-S estimates were based on the older EPA rating system and as far as I'm concerned, Tesla reached those ratings. The new 270 mile range (for 85D) is based on the mixed-EPA rating system. However, the Model-S 85D gets 310 miles based on the European rating system (NEDC).

I too am of the camp that Tesla has managed to do something special with the Model-X and the range is going to surprise most people. Realistically, I'm betting the same as the current Model-S 85D or a few miles less. And thats without the side mirrors. I'm guessing anywhere from 260 - 270 miles for the most efficient version of the Model-X (e.g. 19" tires, spoiler package, no side mirrors, 2 rows of seats, etc.)

Red Sage ca us | 10 juillet 2015

Yeah. If Tesla Motors is somehow able to reduce energy usage to around ~240 Wh per mile or less on average in some type of Eco Mode, then 320 miles is achievable even with an 85 kWh battery pack. But even something of that sort might see dips as low as ~190 Wh per mile, and spikes up to ~270 Wh per mile. If such were enabled on a higher capacity battery pack, then a very decent range could be achieved.

But the 'Range Economy' will probably be controlled mostly by your right foot. Slam the accelerator with all your might, and miles of range will dwindle accordingly. Use gentle, light pressure to casually accelerate and enjoy miles of smiles.

I'd say that 'Real World' range goals would be for no less than 200 miles of highway range -- while towing. That would allow Superchargers spaced at 150 miles apart, and a decent buffer for fraidy cats with leaden paws. It will likely be a while (ie, five or six years) before you will be able to manage 300 miles or more while towing above ~55 MPH. | 10 juillet 2015

In the next couple of days I will post a compilation of the guesses so far.

I remain convinced that more than 300 miles of range is not of value in the S. I am also thinking that a battery pack with >85 kWh will show up in the future and will be most useful in the X, boosting its range to at least match the S85D without a trailer and to exceed 200 miles with a trailer.

Red Sage ca us | 10 juillet 2015

Worst case is that while fully loaded with passengers and cargo, when towing ~7,500 lbs, energy consumption would really shoot up... Especially in those States that put no speed restrictions beyond normal passenger cars on 'AUTOS WITH TRAILERS'. So, you might see 450-600 Wh per mile when at speed, assuming max air conditioning or heating over hill and dale. That would mean perhaps a reduction in range to about 130-170 miles with an 85 kWh battery pack. Meaning you'd have to be very smart, very careful, and very lucky under those conditions.

shahzadnaseer | 10 juillet 2015

Indeed looking forward for Model X Well after getting MODEL X will plan a family vacation trip from Toronto to LosAngeles. I wonder if this would be possible with 85kw battery to use Super Chargers and reach LA,California ?? In fact it would be idea they give the option 120or 135KWh battery it would solve so much problem for people who drives long of course cost would go up drastically but how much?

Ankit Mishra | 11 juillet 2015

The highest version of Model X will have same range as Model S P85D. Non performance 85D of Model X will have same range as Model S 85D. | 12 juillet 2015

Here are the results so far:


@jjs: 250-260 miles (needs to pick a number)
@georgehawley: 200 miles (I didn't know much last summer)
@Red Sage: 239 miles (very wordy :-)) )
@holidayday: 238
@Iowa92x: 220-250 (needs to pick a number)
@vandacca: >=265 miles (needs to pick a number)
@Olof: 241 miles
@keithndeborah: 235 miles
@vperl: <300 miles (needs to pick a number)
@ken: 275 miles
@ankitmishra: 275 miles


1. It is interesting that I envisioned what has become known as torque idle without understanding the operation of the drive units.

2. At the time I conceived this lottery I also didn't understand that dual drive operation reduces internal ohmic losses as compared to RWD operation, a 3-4% effect.

3. Elon has since stated while in Norway the estimated rated range of the Model X to be 10% less than than the Model S. If he was referring to the S85D, this would be 275-27.5=247.5 miles, not 239.5 miles that I stated earlier in the thread, a number I got by basing his estimate on the S85. | 12 juillet 2015

Whoops, the S85D rated range is now 270. 270-27=243

If Elon was accurate, @Olof is closest so far.

matt | 12 juillet 2015

85: 240
85D: 250
P85D: 245

vandacca | 12 juillet 2015

Elon implied 243 miles (with a 85kWh pack). I'm going to guess he bettered that amount and he will achieve 255 miles. However, I'm still hoping for a 105kWh pack to be announced at launch, which would throw these numbers off.

Ankit Mishra | 12 juillet 2015

Bigger battery pack for Model X might hit sales of Model S unless its for Model S too. Tesla needs to concentrate on Model X now. Autopilot also is priority right now. Bigger battery needs to saved as a future demand lever. (my opinion)