Is there any information on the range of the Model X? I cannot seem to find it anywhere.
Are there different range models?
Tesla was explicit that they plan to use the same battery packs as for Model S (except for the 40kWh variant), see the bottom of this page:
The specified range for the Model S for these packs is 230 miles and 300 miles, respectively. The specification is based on a constant speed of 55 mph, thus it is (and must be) somewhat artificial. Based on experience with the Roadster, Tesla's specified ranges should be meaningful and actually achievable in practice, but YMMV.
For the Model X it was stated that ranges will go down approx. 12% by comparison with the Model S, due to greater weight and frontal area (greater aerodynamic drag). That would be 200 miles and 260 miles respectively. It seems to be implied that the difference in range between RWD and AWD is negligible, but I have not yet seen any explicit statements.
Has the MS range or performance been reduced by the frigid temps in the North-Mid-Atlantic states?
Yes, just like ICE cars, range, performance and efficiency is reduced in very cold temperatures.
@ goneskiian | February 19, 2014
<< Yes, just like ICE cars, range, performance and efficiency is reduced in very cold temperatures. >>
On another thread, you indicated the Tesla battery temperature was regulated, implying that there was no direct effect of the environmental temperatures on the battery itself.
Is that implication correct? Does it not mean the effect of cold temperatures is just the effect on the workload and, perhaps, on the efficiency of the motors?
@Remnant - You're reading more into the answers I gave to the questions you asked. In the other thread, you stated that Tesla should have a battery warmer, it does (and a cooler as well). Above you asked if range or performance was reduced in the cold temperatures, they are.
What you didn't ask was if the cold had a direct effect on reducing battery performance. ;-)
I believe it's a combination of both the increased workload (colder, denser air, more rolling resistance on snow, etc.) as well as the fact that all heating to keep the batteries regulated must come from either the electricity coming from the connection to the grid if parked (and I'm assuming plugged in) or from the batteries themselves or motor while moving. This will undoubtedly have an effect on range just like in an ICE car of about 20%.
Here is some more great reading for this...
I understand the MX will have different range than MS. so with the stated loss of range in the 10-20%, one would expect the updated EPA numbers of the MS of 265 miles the MX range would fall 26-40 mile range from the 265 EPA numbers.
Please correct me.
No one knows for sure. Much speculation. No question some aspects that affect range will change. The cross sectional area of the car will go up. That will take range down (All this assumes the same amount of energy, 85Kwh) Weight will most likely go up. If it does that will also take range down. What we don't know is what the coeffient of drag will be. If less than .24, that of the Model S, then range will go up. If new battery chemistry is employed than you might see weight go down and/or energy go up, both of which will increase range.
Probably a 10% hit to range. I think 230 will be on the low side. Hopeful that little if any hit to range.
Other threads on the subject. Do a search via www.volkerize.com.
My prediction is the base X will be 85 kWh and a 100 kWh pack will be optional. Hang with me, here's why:
The X will cost more $$ than the S, and I think Tesla won't release a more expensive ride with lower range. Elon said a larger pack is coming within a year, which corresponds to the X release date.
The Gen 3 base will use a 60 kWh pack to hit 225+ range. The 85 kWh pack will be optional.
Base Model S will eventually move from 60 to 85 kWh, with the 100 kWh available as an upgrade. AWD S option coming in a year, and the larger pack options allow for same or better range than today, despite AWD efficiency losses.
I made all of that up, so who knows how it will unfold. Bet I'm mostly correct...
Elon has always insisted on products that delight, over the top. Not sure of his words here. You can correct me.
What would make the MX do that for me, and I suspect most other potential buyers, would be to trade 0-60 time for range. Give me an MX with 400 mile range. Give me only 7 seconds to 60. After all, if you want to play supercar, buy a MS85P+. When you have 7 people in an SUV, going skiing, or to the mountains, you really do not need all that acceleration. Re-optimize the inverter for range. Get rid of the side mirrors. Use active boundary control to minimize drag. Two motors for better efficiency. Reduce the drag coef. Offer the 100 kwh battery.
These might offset the added weight, height, and awd which traditionally decrease range. Elon, Delight me!
I have a P85 and without Superchargers, barely makes to some places. Its range I keeping with highway traffic is around 180-200 miles with HVAC use. MX85 with increased drag ,weight will make 150-175 miles.
Need 125 KWhr
It has been stated multiple times that Tesla's AWD implementation does not have a negative impact of range.
Those Tesla engineers are really clever. We think they have optimized the front motor efficiency for higher speeds than the rear motor. They shift power from the rear to the front as speed increases. On average the Model X should with AWD should have the same range as a Model X without it (if such a vehicle existed). If this efficiency
Of course both motors can be used at any speed when there is any loss of traction.
Also, Elon stated that the AWD helps reduce the turning radius of the Model X to be as good as, maybe even better than, the Mini.
"If this efficiency" increase of the AWD at highway speeds is significant, might it be enough actually improve range for road trips where 90% of driving is at highway speeds?
I'm sure it will have a range of at least five miles.
True, the AWD will zap barely more electrons than RWD, but the X has multiple factors conspiring against range. Higher ride height, weight, and co-efficient of drag.
That's why 85 kWh will be base and 100 kWh upgrade. Elon stated the X will be 12-15% less efficient, run the numbers...
@Iowa92x - How are you sure that the X will have a higher co-efficient of drag?
Larger frontal cross-sectional area (i.e. taller and maybe wider), and most likely weight due to larger size (although that is not an absolute), but I see no de facto reason the co-efficient of drag must be higher.
Mass and frontal area on X greater than S, rides higher, all kinds of things conspiring to reduce range on X. Just look at the windshield on the X compared to the S.
The force to push a car down the road varies with the speed the car is traveling. It follows an equation of the following form:
road load force = a + bv + cv2
road load force = a + bv + cv2
The letter v represents the velocity of the car, and the letters a, b and c represent three different constants:
The a component does not depend on speed. This comes mostly from the rolling resistance of the tires, and friction in the car's components, like drag from the brake pads, or friction in the wheel bearings.
The b component also comes from friction in components, and from the rolling resistance in the tires.
The c component comes mostly from things that affect aerodynamic drag like the frontal area, drag coefficient and density of the air.
I do not dispute any of the info. you posted. However, with respect, I don't believe it answers the specific question of; "How are you sure that the X will have a higher co-efficient of drag?"
The info. you sited describes drag, not the co-efficient of drag. A larger cross-sectional frontal area and greater mass will affect drag, but they are not directly related to the co-efficient of drag. Please let me know if I have missed something.
jjs, possibly the co-efficient of drag will be similar between X and S, but regardless, several factors conspire to reduce X range. Hopefully, the efficiency gain on X with duel motors (smaller motor driving front wheels) helps narrow the gap.
Iowa92x - Agree that several factors work against the X's range. It will be interesting to see just what the co-efficient of drag ends up being and what the duel motor efficiencies can do to offset the additional cross sectional frontal area and most likely increase in mass. I have not given up on the co-efficient being reduced from the S.
The Tesla engineers have had a couple of years to work on this and their track record has been impressive to date. Hopefully they have a rabbit or two left to pull out of their hat.
To my knowledge, coefficient of drag has to do with a specific shape, regardless of size. That is why there are scale models of vehicles at various sizes. They are typically something like 1:32, 1:16, 1:4, 1:2, or 1:1 scale when the design is being fine-tuned. Models are made of wood, clay, or metal. Then a prototype is built at full size, to see how it compares to the results that were generated from earlier testing.
Yep. Frontal cross-sectional area will increase drag as it increases. However it has nothing to do with the coefficient of drag. It is essentially how efficiently a object can pass through a medium. In the case of cars the medium is air. In the case of fish the medium is water.
Tesla engineers are somewhat limited to what they can do with frontal cross-sectional area. It is in large part driven by the average size of a human, the size of roads, the number of passenger (3 across) etc.
Where they can make gains is in the coefficient of friction/drag. The S is currently at .24. If they could get the X below that, which is possible (keep in mind the co-efficient of drag is NOT tied to it's size) then we might be pleasantly surprised by the X's range. It is this co-efficient of drag that had Tesla petitioning a rule change to allow cameras to be used instead of side mirrors. The savings, according to Tesla, would be a savings of 5% of the co-efficient of drag. This is a big deal as the savings to range is not linear but the square of the savings. Put another way an object with a co-efficient of drag of .20 uses 4 times less energy to travel a mile than an object with a co-efficient of drag of .40. The object is only twice as "slippery" but 4 times as efficient.
Nature points gives us some insight to just how "slippery" or low a co-efficient of drag can be. A dolphin has a drag coefficient of 0.0036. No that is not a misprint. It's almost zero.
The history of car design gives us some metric of what we can do with cars. The Hummer H2 has a drag coefficient of .57. A drag coefficient of .30-.32 is fairly common for most production cars. Almost all cars below .24 are concept cars.
The reported best drag coefficient every produced was the Nuna with a drag coefficient of .07.
Co-efficient of drag doesn't account for things like driveline losses and mass, so it's only part of the efficiency picture. A lower co-efficient of drag on the X compared to S is not an automatic indicator of improved range.
The X will have lower range than the S by 12% to 15%, hence an 85 kWh base pack.
Absolutely true. It is only one of multiple factors. I am simply pointing out it is one that could be in favor of increased range. Frontal cross-sectional area WILL be a factor which, all other factors being equal will decrease range. In my opinion it is the only one for sure that will decrease range. Coefficient of drag has a chance to be in favor of more range. Mass most likely will be a drag on range. (Pun intended.) but is not know for sure As for drive-train loss (i.e. two motors) Elon has alluded to some clever engineering to mitigate this.
Mass, coefficient of drag, drive train efficiency, mass, energy density of the battery cells and frontal cross-sectional area will all be interesting stats.