MX range predictions

MX range predictions

Anyone care to speculate:

I'll say it has to be over 350 miles EPA for family people to want to ditch their SUV. Data will show that this range is not used or regularly necessary. HOwever this is more emotional draw. Think successful apps--engage users with an emotional draw.

KyleGoss | 2015年3月4日

Very unlikely. The bottom end Tesla will be shooting for is clearly 200 miles EPA, anything less than that would be unacceptable. The goal for the larger battery is most likely 250-265 to be similar to the Model S. If they managed to get to 300 that would be a huge achievement because it would allow people to easily make it from Supercharger to Supercharger even when towing. | 2015年3月4日

This has been broached in the past. In fact I may owe someone a Tesla jacket when we finally learn the numbers. Don't hold your breath for 350 even downhill at 25 mph with a tail wind.

vandacca | 2015年3月4日

@georgehawley, do you mind revealing what the wager was?

proven | 2015年3月4日

I don't think it will get anywhere close to 350.

In my opinion, one of the reasons for the delays has probably been range problems. The car is bigger (less aerodynamic), heavier (I think?) and is built on the same platform as the Model S. I wouldn't be surprised if the equivalent battery is 15-20% lower range than the Model S.

However, it's possible that they will offer a slightly bigger battery option to offset the lower range since they removed the wording on the website that used to say 60 and 85 versions.

Personally, I hope the delays have been worth it and the range is similar to the Model S. Anything less and it could cause us to reconsider our deposit on the X. We will be replacing our minivan which is our last remaining ICE, and the car that we make long trips in.

Iowa92x | 2015年3月4日

Same range targets as Model S. Will require larger pack, since the stealth side cameras not approved (which would improve range ~ 5%).

grant10k | 2015年3月4日 Isn't the range at 45mph highway on the S something absurd like 400mi?

Though that might be from trucks crashing into you and pushing the resulting pileup 400mi down the highway.

jjs | 2015年3月4日

@grant10k The record was set by a father and son in FL. (Warm and flat.) It was north of 425 and they averaged about 23 mph if my memory is correct. (Now the fun part...someone searches, finds the original thread/article and corrects me. :) )

Brian H | 2015年3月4日

Yeah, george, I'll take that bet. Is there a 400-mi downhill handy? ;p

Remnant | 2015年3月5日

@ Iowa92x (March 4, 2015)

<< Same range targets as Model S. Will require larger pack, since the stealth side cameras not approved (which would improve range ~ 5%). >>

The side cameras don't need approval and Tesla can already offer them along with removable mirrors. It's the exclusive use of side rearview cameras (as mirror substitutes, i.e., with no mirrors) that requires approval, and that's likely to come later this year.

However, a 5% range increase won't win a lot of additional buyers. For that, Tesla should offer a range increase of at least 20%, IMHO. | 2015年3月5日 | 2015年3月5日

Wait a minute. I forgot that the MX will have an optional trailer hitch. You might get 350 miles downhill and downwind at 25 mph with a 7000 pound trailer. But I could be wrong.

grant10k | 2015年3月5日

@Brian H: I think the longest downhill road stretch of road is somewhere in the range of 40mi. 400mi downhill would require a mountain about the size of Texas.

james.nicklin | 2015年3月5日

Mons Olympus on Mars?

grant10k | 2015年3月5日

Yes and no. Mons Olympus seems to be a little shy of 400mi wide, so that's only 200mi downhill. It's also a very shallow mountain so you don't get as much downhill benefit starting from the middle. However, because it's so shallow maybe what you can do is start from the far edge, before it starts to get steep, drive across the top until you're low on juice, coast downhill and regenerate a little bit, then drive on the surface with the power you just got. You could go farther than if you magically started on the top of a mountain with a full tank (which would make regen useless).

On the other hand, it's unpaved and on Mars, so you know. Whatever. | 2015年3月5日

The trouble with Mars is the winds are puny as is the force of gravity but the concept is worth exploring. I'll get Elon right on it. Another reason to go to Mars. | 2015年3月5日

There's a pretty good stretch downhill in the Himalayas: but the headwinds disqualify it.

vandacca | 2015年3月5日

Weird, I thought that as soon as @georgehawley received his Model-S, he wouldn't be posting to this forum as much. It would seem that the opposite is true. I'm glad I switched my reservation from the Model-S to the Model-X a couple of years ago. ;)

Or is it because his wife keeps taking it?

Remnant | 2015年3月5日

I've just read a piece on wheel shutters as energy savers:

What do you think about this?

vandacca | 2015年3月5日

This is a great idea if it's executed properly.
Maybe they can also incorporate heat extraction/conversion technology to help recharge the batteries too?

See this article:

Remnant | 2015年3月5日

@ vandacca (March 5, 2015)

<< Maybe they can also incorporate heat extraction/conversion technology to help recharge the batteries too? >>

This resembles regenerative braking, so it's likely to be included in it, once it becomes production-ready.

PMadFlyer | 2015年3月5日

I've always thought it strange that no ICE uses waste heat from the exhaust and thermo-piezoelectric material to charge a small battery. that's where most of the ICE's energy goes anyway. My assumption is that if it can't be used for that purpose, it is unlikely to work in this scenario. I don't know if it's an issue of cost/efficiency, durability, or something else, but I imagine an exhaust system to be more adequate than a wheel.

vandacca | 2015年3月5日

Heat is one of the lowest forms of energy. That is, it is hard to convert heat to a higher, more usable form of energy, like chemical potential in a battery or kinetic energy in the form of motion, with high efficiency.

But you can get some of that heat energy as long as you have a heat differential (two surfaces with a significant difference in temperature).

I don't know why they never caught on in ICE vehicles (perhaps the gains were too insignificant when compared to the energy stored in gasoline), but they are used in homes to heat incoming air with the hot air being expelled (heat-exchangers).

mr.fabian.rappe | 2015年3月5日

The goodyear tire is just a promotion product. As been said earlier the amount of electricity would so small, the better way would be to develop a tire with less friction when you don't need the friction.

Friction is useful for acceleration/braking and sharp turns but needs lots of power to move forward, the friction generates heat. Heat=energy "loss". So Goodyear make a tire that when you push the accelerator the friction increase, when you steer sharp the friction increases and when you brake make it have as much friction as possible.

One way you can make this work is with a onboard compressor that pumps the tires to max to make them roll as easy as possible when on highway, It would just be energy effective (compressing takes lots of power) on long journey and make them softer when needed like when breaking a tire with less air would have bigger surface area and therefore more grip.

Make this work TESLA!

vandacca | 2015年3月5日

@mr.fabian.rappe, it sounds like you're describing Goodyear's design project from last year:

mr.fabian.rappe | 2015年3月5日

@vandacca. No, not really I mean a onboard compressor that regulates tire pressure after what is needed, grip or roll.

jjs | 2015年3月5日

Even I (nerd that I am) am amazed at the level of nerdiness in this group. You are an amazing assembly of eclectic, energetic, EV enthusiasts, espousing engineering enlightenment effecting every enigmatic erudite expanse.

vandacca | 2015年3月5日

And you @jjs are one alliterate dude!

@mr.fabian.rappe, imagine these two-tubed tires individually controlled by a compressor. You could have smooth or grippy/off-road depending on which tube is more inflated. Maybe even use the front-camera to pre-inflate/deflate the tubes based on the road surface ahead. :)

mr.fabian.rappe | 2015年3月5日

@vandacca Sky is the limit. don't know the processes making a tire but they are quite expensive as they are. Adding complicity to the manufacture process may add much cost and tire wear quiet a lot. system of deflating and inflating is kinda easy. Front camera detection sounds real good. Prepare for potholes etc.

vandacca | 2015年3月5日

The cost is irrelevant when you're buying a $100,000 Tesla - less than 1% of the cost. The physics is also irrelevant at that price range. :)

mr.fabian.rappe | 2015年3月5日

Vandacca do you have a Tesla? Im buying a X and tires pose sure a part in price of a car.

vandacca | 2015年3月5日

No, I do not have a Tesla yet. I put a deposit down on the Model-S a couple of years before it was released, but when the Model-X was announced, I switched my deposit to the Model-X. At the time, the Model-S was just hitting the streets and I was called up to customize my Model-S. The Model-X was supposed to be released within a year, so I thought I could wait that long.

That was 2 years ago! I have a very low reservation number (non-signature), so I hope to get my Model-X before fall 2015.

mr.fabian.rappe | 2015年3月5日

good for you I just put down a deposit. sorry to hear you have been waiting for 2 years... | 2015年3月6日

@Dan: OCD...

jjs | 2015年3月6日

OCD? Outstanding Comedic Display?
Yeah, that's what I'm going with. :) | 2015年3月6日

X range:

1. how much more will it weigh?

I'm thinking 10% or about 500 pounds more. that will add about 18 wh/mile compared to the MS

2. how much more drag will it have?

the MS has a drag coefficient of .24. I'm guessing that Tesla has really worked hard on this. My. number for the MX is .28 which would be amazing. That adds about 50 wh/mi @ 65 mph

3. How much will the dual drive save?

i think maybe 3%

bottom line: 360wh/mi at 65
This equates to about 210 miles assuming 75 kwh a ailable charge.

this,if correct augugs for a heftier battery pack option. I'm still guessing 105 kwh tops | 2015年3月6日

augurs that is. iphone keyboard aargh

dortor | 2015年3月6日

Q: What Range with the Model X have?
A: Enough, but just barely…

james.nicklin | 2015年3月6日

george, Tesla has stated that the MX has a lower drag coefficient than the MS. Think more like 0.20-0.22

ian | 2015年3月6日

Where did they say that? I find that VERY hard to believe, nigh, near impossible since the S is one of the most slippery cars on the road.

vandacca | 2015年3月6日

I recall hearing the same thing that the Model-X will be more slippery than the Model-S. However, due to its larger frontal area, the forces of aerodynamic friction may be equal to the Model-S or even be higher?

Gert van Veen | 2015年3月6日 | 2015年3月6日

Thanks, @Gert. If my MX shows up with a rated range of 600 km (360 miles) my expectations will be exceeded by far and I will be delighted. I'm expecting 210 miles or so with an 85 kWh pack and maybe 270 with my hypothetical 105 kWh pack. I hope my numbers are too low.

@james.nicklin: I missed that drag estimate by Tesla for the MX. I'm with Dan. I'm no expert on drag which has two components: surface friction and frontal area. The MX pushes a lot more air than the MS, I think.

There are two production cars in the world with a lower coefficient of friction than the Tesla MS: a MB C-class at .22 and the VW XL1 at .19. Take a look at the XL1 (BTW VW is building only 250 of them for Europe only)


It's hard to believe that the MX will be close to that. | 2015年3月6日

@james.nicklin: I believe this is the quote you were citing from a Musk/Straubel Q&A session in Norway on Feb. 1:

The Model X will actually have a lower drag coefficient than the super-slick Model S. But because of its increased frontal area, the total drag will be higher. Combined with a slightly heavier weight, the Model X will have an energy consumption about 10 percent higher than the Model S. (Musk did not say whether the Model X battery size would be increased in order to maintain the same range as the Model S.)

"Total drag will be higher" are the operative words. QED.

10% less range would put the 85 kWh MX at about 240 miles, better than my guess of 210.

vandacca | 2015年3月6日

Thanks @Gert.van.Veen for that link - looks like it's so recent it's from the future! However, I'm not sure if it's a reliable article. There are a couple of things that were mentioned that I don't believe:

Like the X5 series, the Model X is expected to be offered in two-wheel drive and all-wheel drive guises.
- I'm expecting the Model-X to only be offered in all-wheel drive. Elon & the Tesla website has reported this fact for some time.

The Model X is expected to be released with a 600km (372 mile) electric driving range.
- If the Model-X has a 482 km (300 mile) range, I would be ecstatic. I would be extremely surprised if it's anything higher that that and would not be surprised if it was lower.

Otherwise, the remaining article is just common knowledge.

Red Sage ca us | 2015年3月7日

I wrote this on the earlier thread:

Going 'ALL IN' with Two Pair...

That was in early June 2014, and I thought at the time a 135 kWh battery pack would be needed to reach a 379 mile EPA rated range with the Tesla Model X. Today, I think that capacity would make for a 339 mile range instead. Perhaps as much as 263 miles while towing at 55 MPH. But since it seems that an 85 kWh battery pack might be the highest offered from the start, a 214 mile range would be around the standard... Maybe 160 miles while towing.

Red Sage ca us | 2015年3月7日

358 6,000 LBS BMW X5 M

james.nicklin | 2015年3月8日

I never tried to say it would have less total aero drag than the S, just a lower coefficient. My statement was regarding the one by george three up from mine.

jjs | 2015年3月8日

+1 james.nicklin I think you are going to be correct.
Lower drag coefficient. That may or may not result in lower overall drag. It will however, help. | 2015年3月10日

@james.nicklin: you were quite correct. I was sloppy in the use of drag coefficient terminology. However, the bottom line, as suggested by Elon and JB last month, is that the overall drag due to air friction will be greater than the MS. The weight will be greater than the MS. The MX range will be less than the MS for a given drive unit and battery pack combination.

However, I wouldn't give up on a higher capacity battery pack just yet. One possible clue is the removal of the numbers 60 and 85 from the MX website page, replaced with "options". It could be that a premium battery pack will be offered with a capacity exceeding 100 kWh. That would compensate for the extra weight and drag. That way they could offer an entry level price for a premium crossover in the high $70K area (60 kwh pack, std drive units and stripped down feature set), a moderate price in the $90s for a premium crossover with decent range and towing capacity (85 kWh pack with some options and std drive units.), a higher price in the $100K+ area for excellent range and decent towing capacity (100+ kWh pack with some options and std. drive units) and a top price in the $120K+ area for excellent range and towing capacity (100+ kWh pack with options and performance drive units). After floating the $70K number, they could quietly remove the 60 kWh option from the design page.

Sound like a plan?