Tesla Model S bike collision test, tesla will not kill cyclists.
Tesla Model S owner tests Autopilot's ability to avoid hitting bikers [Video]
Tesla Model S owner tests Autopilot's ability to avoid hitting bikers [Video]
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
50kWh is 50kWh as far as capacity goes. Hence I assume you must be claiming that the additional range will be due to lesser mass.
I think folks overestimate the effect of this amount of mass reduction on range. A compounded 7% increase over 5 years represents a cell mass reduction of 1/3rd. And even though that's only part of the overall pack mass, as not everything scales downward linearly, I'll still be conservative and say you can reduce the entire pack mass by 1/3rd.
My Model S 85kWh pack weighs something like 1200lbs. So I'm going to say a 50kWh Model 3 pack will weigh ~700 lbs.
Shave 1/3rd of that weight off, and you save 233 lbs. I seriously doubt a mass reduction of 233 lbs is going to allow a 50kW to go 300 miles. That's a power consumption of only 167Wh/mi. Especially when many are hoping a Model 3 with a 60kW pack will make ~240 miles, which is 250Wh/mi. Even 275 miles on a 60kW pack is 218Wh/mi.
You are expecting a 30-50% improvement in power efficiency with that little of a mass reduction. Ain't gonna happen, IMO.
I can tell you that adding or removing 233lbs worth of passengers and cargo on my Model S makes almost no difference in range... especially at highway speed where aero forces dominate.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
We don't know what the Model 3 range with 60 kWh pack will be. I think it may be higher than the ~240 miles you noted that many are hoping... Please check this out and let me know your thoughts:
New Model 3 photos surface, pointing to 300+ mile range and interior details
ValueAnalyst
Closed
I'm not sure how competitive this will be vs. Tesla's all-electric fully autonomous fleet 2018+
Does it really? It sounds to me like Waymo contracted with Avis to change the oil in their fleet of cars, and do other maintenance. Nothing more. ("Avis will handle cleaning, oil changes, tire rotations and other vehicle services but will not be responsible for upkeep on Waymo’s specialized hardware, such as its lidar sensors.")
Would this news have caused a dip had Waymo contracted with PepBoys instead?
If this news caused the dip then people weren't actually reading the details and just made stuff up in their mind based on the article title.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Its pointless really as Autonomous costs will boil down to Cost per mile for fuel and maintenance and EV + Solar powered Superchargers is going to be like 25c per mile vs 80c/mi for ICE and 33 miles of EV range on the Waymo mini van isnt going to save more then 5c/mile. I still want to get one for my wife because she doesnt drive that much and we need 7 seats + storage. Tesla is going to partner with Tesla for its self driving network, which says a lot about how confident they are in how many people/fleets will opt into the network. The network only works if you have enough vehicles so that people can feel confident they can get a car when they need one. Avis + Waymo is really an odd coupling. When I think self driving car I think car rentals? Certainly and Uber or Lyft like partnership would be better or maybe Avis is starting their own ride sharing solution?
I have a feeling that Tesla will not be turning the Tesla network into a profit center. I think it will be a lot like the Supercharger network and service centers where the fees will be enough to cover costs only and you will get free supercharging while your car is in the network. So they might take say 5c/mi and you get the other 20c/mi. The 5c would cover free supercharging and the software to enable the super charging network. As part of this agreement, I could see Tesla having the right to leverage your battery for a distributed energy solution where your car is being used to store excess electricity during the day and they could pay you say 5c/KWh for the right to drive your car to a supercharger and have it top off during peak times. This only really works if you have thousands of cars with the ability to get them to a charger on-demand. That would be like $2.50 for an hour of charging (50KWh + Travel to and from charger and not go over 90%) which would be $75 a month just to allow this to happen. You could literally get paid to charge, even at home if your car happens to be plugged in at home. The main point here is that Tesla's network will be about 10x more compelling because its 100% pure EV and there are so many things you can do with tens of thousands of mobile power plants.
jhm
Well-Known Member
20 million cumulative by 2025 is just starting at about 390k delivered in 2018 and growing 50% annually thereafter. I don't know why you'd think that growth would drop from 50% in 2025 to GDP levels, ~3%, in just one year. I think Tesla will have much more growth in it well into 2030s.
This trajectory also assumes that Tesla needs enough battery capacity for 6.7 million vehicles in 2025. So vehicle production capacity needs be at 6.7 million vehicles. At 100kWh per vehicle (conservative), Tesla will also need 670 GWh of battery production capacity. We don't know what the average capacity of a Gigafactory will be, so I am content to simple express capacity needs in units of veh/yr and GWh/yr. But certainly this could involve some 8 to 12 Gigafactory campuses.
Anybody know why the Fremont plant is not called a Gigafactory? I'd like to think of if as Gigafactory 0. (Programmers may have issues with this depending on their preferred language.)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
That in fact suggests around a 240 mile range from a 60kWh pack.
My guess is that this model 3 has the 75 kWh pack. It is extremely likely that the initial model 3's will have the large pack.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
To answer your question regarding the drop in growth rate: I'm actually assuming much faster growth than 50% per year for 2017-2020 (due to Model 3/Y/Semi/Pick-up/Energy/Network), then decreasing it gradually through 2025 all the way to slightly higher than global GDP growth rate (so 5%).
I realize this is conservative for 2025+ but thank you for pointing it out for others.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Because they dont make any Gigawatts in Fremont. GF2 is supposed to pumping out panels and solar roof tiles at a rate of multiple Gigawatts per year. If battery densities continue to rise, do we think they will be building Terafactories at some point with combined Battery and Solar output of 1000GW/Y. Thats a lot of cars and roof tiles. 20% of the new roof market (20% of 5M/Y) would be 5GW with an average sized 5KW system so probably no Terafactories required. You would want to spread out the Gigafactories to shorten the supply chain and get closer to where the product is going to be used.
I agree. 75 kWh and ~300 miles is what's been expected for many months now.
And I can understand the decision to hold off on AWD, performance, etc to keep things simple. But starting with the small pack would mean *adding* complexity for less initial demand and revenue. It makes no sense.
I'm not sure that the term Gigafactory only applies to Watts. I believe once they ramp up to 1 billion cars per year they will call it a Gigafactory.
Last edited:
Reciprocity
Active Member
S60 is 210 miles of range and S75 is 249. I think the weight difference between the S and 3 will give no more then a mile of range difference, the biggest difference will come from the drag and surface area at the front of the car. With a 10% smaller front end, 20% less drag and 30% less weight, mostly due to being smaller but also because the 2170 is 30-35% more energy dense and thus lighter per KWh. Smaller wheels will also help a tiny bit. Given all of that, I am still surprised if they are going to do a 60KWh battery and instead would do 55KWh or even 50KWh, but since we are pretty sure they are doing 60, I would guess 15% improvement over S60 + 1 mile for weight and +1 for smaller wheels or 243 miles and 288 miles (Duel Motor would add 10 miles so 298). I just dont think that they will want to encroach on the 300+ mile range of the Model S. IF the drag and frontal surface area is actually better then my guess, I honestly think they would go with smaller battery so 55KWh (240) and 70KWh (288), which would actually be very similar ranges noted above, just more efficient vehicle. That would add up to 243Wh/mi and I dont that is a stretch for a more aerodynamic and smaller car.
I think it is important to note the difference between EPA range and real world Supercharger jump range. The EPA testing is actually terrible for examining real world highway range for an EV. It overemphases city driving. And since EPA all electric range is derived from the combined MPGe, which is slanted towards city travel, the comparison is skewed. It makes vehicles that excel at city driving with better acceleration and deceleration efficiency appear to have longer range than they really have since most people care about the exact 150+ mile range on the highway. Most people don't care if the car has 150 or 180 or 200 miles of range at 0-40 mph in the city, moving from traffic light to traffic light.
Since the Model 3 will, by all reports, have the next generation cell chemistry and is considerably smaller with correspondingly lower mass, it will have better acceleration efficiency than a Model S or X. Musk also made commentary that it has very good aerodynamics. Therefore, I expect that the EPA rated range to be quite a jump in the Model 3, but the actual real world Supercharger jump range to be much closer than the EPA ratings would suggest. That's because the efficiency difference at speed will be smaller.
This all, however, will be quite difficult to explain to the consumer. I have been pondering exactly how to explain it to lay people. Car reviewers thus far have been terrible about explaining all the parts that are actually important to BEV owners, especially traditional car reviewers that don't even have an EV plug at home.
Since the Model 3 will, by all reports, have the next generation cell chemistry and is considerably smaller with correspondingly lower mass, it will have better acceleration efficiency than a Model S or X. Musk also made commentary that it has very good aerodynamics. Therefore, I expect that the EPA rated range to be quite a jump in the Model 3, but the actual real world Supercharger jump range to be much closer than the EPA ratings would suggest. That's because the efficiency difference at speed will be smaller.
This all, however, will be quite difficult to explain to the consumer. I have been pondering exactly how to explain it to lay people. Car reviewers thus far have been terrible about explaining all the parts that are actually important to BEV owners, especially traditional car reviewers that don't even have an EV plug at home.
Last edited:
Even if that's the case, I believe folks are overly optimistic about range gains. (And I actually think some folks think that 2170 cell based kWh are somehow better than 18650 cell kWh... but a kWh, is a kWh, but that's a separate discussion)
Let's look at it a different way:
A Model 3 is about 80% the size of a Model S. A Model S RWD weighs about 4,700lbs. Likely the Model 3 will have less options, reducing some weight. But it also will incorporate more steel rather than aluminum, increasing weight. Let's say those cancel out and use 80% as our mass target, that's 3,760lbs.
A weight savings of 233lbs is only a 6% decrees in mass. Yet the idea that you can reduce the battery capacity by 17% (from 60kWh to 50kWh), and expect to go the same distance doesn't makes sense.
Again this is particularly because the mass comes in to play primarily during acceleration/deceleration. It has some impact on rolling resistance. It has zero impact on aerodynamic forces.
As such, I'd expect that 6% mass reduction to have perhaps maybe 1-2% actual range impact. Not nearly enough to shave 10kWh off the battery and expect to go the same distance.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Can you please provide support for "GF2 is supposed to pumping out panels and solar roof tiles at a rate of multiple Gigawatts per year."
Thanks in advance.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
