Dreadnought 1.0. The current version is 0.5.
0.5 will be ramping up to 10k/week, while 1.0 is being designed/built.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Dreadnought 1.0. The current version is 0.5.
0.5 will be ramping up to 10k/week, while 1.0 is being designed/built.
It will be very interesting to see Supercharger network v2 upgrade with possibly higher charge rates and automated plugs. That's assuming the 90 kW, 120kW, and 135kW variants are v0.9, v1.0, and v1.1. Will Tesla start deploying that in numbers before CCS v2 with amperages > 200 amps? Will there be more V2 Supercharger plugs at the end of 2018 than CCS v2?
I really feel bad for the many good Uber drivers at the bottom of this 'aggressively managed' mess. I hope Tesla can provide a better path forward...
Uber president of ride-sharing Jeff Jones resigns
Uber president of ride-sharing Jeff Jones resigns
Thumper
Active Member
Does anyone have an idea what the amp limit is for the present Tesla plug? If they need more surface area to accommodate higher amps, can they just make the plug wells deeper?
If you are still trying to say that Tesla (and Straubel) are rating their new 2170 as yielding less power per equivalent volume compared to the 18650 - you could start by explaining how you arrive at that conclusion.
8797scaesare
No, that's not necessarily the case. Tesla can make any configuration they want. But for all packs that are common to both 3 and S/X, they can use common inner batteries, and outer shells to fit each platform.
This will be far more efficient than producing separate complete configurations for each platform. They will most likely go for the most efficient production possible.
The more I look at the improved energy density of the 2170, the more it looks likely that there indeed will be a 50% reduction in volume requirement, and make the 100 kWh an option for the 3. This is because the height of the 2170 adds about 9% extra total volume to the same footprint. Additionally, the trade-off of higher energy density of 2170 to former footprint area used in the S yields about a total 50% improvement in kWh per volume. The 3 is not really that much smaller than the S.
No, that's not necessarily the case. Tesla can make any configuration they want. But for all packs that are common to both 3 and S/X, they can use common inner batteries, and outer shells to fit each platform.
This will be far more efficient than producing separate complete configurations for each platform. They will most likely go for the most efficient production possible.
The more I look at the improved energy density of the 2170, the more it looks likely that there indeed will be a 50% reduction in volume requirement, and make the 100 kWh an option for the 3. This is because the height of the 2170 adds about 9% extra total volume to the same footprint. Additionally, the trade-off of higher energy density of 2170 to former footprint area used in the S yields about a total 50% improvement in kWh per volume. The 3 is not really that much smaller than the S.
the first generation of upsized cells (ie 21700 etc) are indeed lower energy per volume than their 18650 predecessors.
http://akkuplus.de/mediafiles/Datenblatt/Panasonic/Panasonic_NCR20700B.pdf
it is expected over time they will refine to be slightly higher energy per unit volume, but the initial generation or 2 will be inferior to the 18650 in that regard.
http://akkuplus.de/mediafiles/Datenblatt/Panasonic/Panasonic_NCR20700B.pdf
it is expected over time they will refine to be slightly higher energy per unit volume, but the initial generation or 2 will be inferior to the 18650 in that regard.
Elon isn't usually wrong about much. He does genuinely ask for constructive criticism, thereby inviting others to offer up possible improvements. But in this case, I think he was referring to the 18650, (in a coy way), as a means of deflecting present interest in the 100 kWh for the 3. He probably has plans for that option (or even better than 100), but for later. He doesn't usually offer up the best possible configurations on the first iteration. Smart marketing.
If you can provide ANY shred of evidence Tesla had ever suggested anything other 2170's for the Model 3 packs then I'll be... uh.. even more convinced Elon doesn't know what he's talking about and you have it all figured out....
Why the attitude? No one is saying Elon doesn't know what he is talking about. Aren't you interested in reasonable discussion? The Model 3 will be a great car as it first appears. Tesla (and Elon) will not leave it as it is first presented. Did they do that for the S? There is nothing wrong with looking ahead.
Because you ignore repeated requests for supporting evidence and instead repeatedly make the same claims despite evidence presented to the contrary.
So the "attitude" was hyperbole to try and get that point across...
So the "attitude" was hyperbole to try and get that point across...
I have given evidence - calculations (post 8796) that the 2170 will indeed provide density needed to fit 100 kWh in the Model 3.
Do not forget that his average performance is around -40%, i.e. if you listen to his advice you lose nearly half your money each year. On the other hand, if you use him as a negative indicator doing exactly the opposite of what he suggest, you can make some good money...
ps: I wonder if there is any other job where you can survive with such horrible performance metric and not get fired
"Journalism." So much of what is written (and not written) by "analysts" and "journalists" is not what they think, but what the big money behind their job pays them to try to lead their readers into thinking.
just semantics, but I'm pretty sure amid the tweets referring to the other automakers going for 350 kW charging in a few years, Elon said all the pieces are in place for v3 (and elsewhere, I believe current Superchargers have been referred to as v2).
Ah, yes, you're right that right now they're at V2. So it's V3 we're waiting for now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
