2170s for the Model S soon [Speculation]

[mongo]

I'm quite sure there's a market for larger batteries. It may only be a fraction of the overall market, as with the top-end iPhone, but it exists. People would rather not have to go out of their way to stop and charge. I think that if Tesla were to release a 400 mile version of the Model S today, this would generate a sizable number of new orders, including existing owners choosing to upgrade. It would also bring real "halo" benefits.

Our Model S has 144K miles on the odometer, it gets about 250 miles of range, and we drain the battery down to 10-20% on a semi-regular basis, for roundtrips that we do within SoCal. We can Supercharge for free, but we prefer not having to make an extra stop, so we generally do these drives on a single charge from home. Ultimately, it'd be great to have charging at our particular destinations, but that's likely years away.

Tesla has generally done a great job of placing Superchargers near amenities such as at shopping malls. And we do need to get out and stretch on road trips. However, not every charging stop is going to align perfectly with where we actually want or need to stop. Not every route is well served by Superchargers, even in California. We do what we need to do to make things work, and it's totally worth it to be driving a Tesla, but it is necessary to pay attention to range and charging opportunities when away from home.

So, I certainly wouldn't mind having 400 miles of range! We tend to keep our cars for a long time, but if I were spending the money for a new Model S or X, I'd try to get as much range as possible.

A drop in 2170 pack plus Model 3 PMSR style motor could boost range 10+% ish.
For P, they could even go dual rear motor (ala Roadster) , if needed (depends on peak output from PMSR).

 

[dc_h]

Moving to 2170 means no more pack assembly at Fremont, opening critical space. Eliminating the 75 means opening up critical space. This could allow Tesla two options. Redo the SX lines and combine into one more automated single line for both cars and still leaving the second X line space available for another car, assuming you also had the pack assembly space. After the new SX line is done, you could increase SX production again and have two models. They would also switch motors to 3 based motors for 10% better efficiency and to reduce cost by reducing parts. If they can create space for the Model Y, guving up some SX production is worth it, or they may only give up SC production in Q1, while they build the new combined SX production line and the updated SX.
They are also to AP3, so that could mean updated graphics and wiring harnesses. If they do all that, perhaps there’s a design tweak. Long term another SUV with normal doors and a more rugged Range Rover style would be smart. Get ahead of the Rivin.
So, basically a new SX on March 15, on a new line with new battery, motor, graphics and AP3, new wiring based on model 3 insights and enhanced safety based on model 3 lessons. All while improving margins. And bonus, by moving pack and motor production to GF1, you’ve created room for Y production and improve margins on the model 3.

 

[emmz0r]

I think S/X is on the backburner to make room for Model Y. I welcome battery replacement with 2170 cells if mine fails though

 

[J1mbo]

I guess the 3 is making SX look very expensive - they can build more than 2x as many 3's in a week than SX combined and they must be making more margin on the 3 production overall. Trimming S&X production to maximise margin and bringing Y forward is logical IMO.

 

[mongo]

Putting this isn proper thread..

@Drumheller said

Looking at it that way, I think there has to be some upgrades coming to the S/X and very soon. I anticipate the 100 battery becoming the low range S/X. I wouldn't be surprised to hear the longer range version is using the 2170 cells...

(snark)
Yes, because everything we've seen points out to Tesla trying increase S/X production doesn't it?
Yes, because everything we've seen shows signs of a company focused on the high end, doesn't it?
Yes, because everything we've seen looks like a company that thinks it has capital to burn, rather than a company pinching pennies to pour into its mission-critical capital projects, doesn't it?
Yes, because let's forget the dozens of issues repeatedly raised about the 2170 nonstarter in the remotely near term, right?
(/snark)

So many people here are living in denial. They're cutting back on S/X. How can you not see that? This might reverse at some point in the future, but "very soon"? How can anyone possibly believe this in light of recent news? This is a textbook case of wishful thinking. Don't invest based on wishful thinking.

A 2170 pack is not about increasing production, it would be about increasing profit, reducing labor, improving 3/S Y/X differentiation, and reducing floor space usage in Fremont.

It would be a company focused on the bottom line, if adjusting the high design can improve that, then why not? Just 2k in savings per S/X at 50k a year is 100 million net profit.

A 2170 pack is not a capital intensive activity, especially when already creating new machines that from packs/ modules of various sizes. The current pack height can support the 2170 as-is with new modules.
Further, a capital investment that provide immediate cost saving is not a 'burn', just like GF1 was not a burn.

Issues that are potential problem and not absolutes supported by much/ any data.

It's not denial, it's that the facts in evidence do not exclude a 100+ kWh 2170 S/X pack being a fiscally sound and engineeringly feasible thing.

Again, 2k savings per pack, 50k cars = 100 million net profit (before interesting on long term CapEx financing assuming a delta machine cost from current new lines).

 

[sandpiper]

... or dropping entire production shifts and accepting a lower volume with higher margin for the foreseeable future, because they have zero resources to take on an S/X redesign with all of the other balls in the air right now.

I see this as far more likely.

Or reducing sales to allow them to cherry pick high margin 100s, while building out the remaining run of the current S, in anticipation of a downtime to retool.

I cannot imagine that they will just let the S/X fade.

 

[Gerasimental]

All this focus on the batteries is misplaced IMO.

The M3 has a more efficient drivetrain than MS/MX. M3 AWD seems to get around 220-240 wh/mile versus the 75D which gets around 300 wh/mile (on default tyres / in summer / etc.) from a similar size battery.

Just wanted to make the point that this difference in wh/mile between 3 and S/X is only to a very small extend due to differences in drive train efficiencies. Most of it is down the larger weight, larger tyres, and larger frontal area of the S/X compared to the 3.

 

[cityberty]

Putting this isn proper thread..

@Drumheller said



A 2170 pack is not about increasing production, it would be about increasing profit, reducing labor, improving 3/S Y/X differentiation, and reducing floor space usage in Fremont.

It would be a company focused on the bottom line, if adjusting the high design can improve that, then why not? Just 2k in savings per S/X at 50k a year is 100 million net profit.

A 2170 pack is not a capital intensive activity, especially when already creating new machines that from packs/ modules of various sizes. The current pack height can support the 2170 as-is with new modules.
Further, a capital investment that provide immediate cost saving is not a 'burn', just like GF1 was not a burn.

Issues that are potential problem and not absolutes supported by much/ any data.

It's not denial, it's that the facts in evidence do not exclude a 100+ kWh 2170 S/X pack being a fiscally sound and engineeringly feasible thing.

Again, 2k savings per pack, 50k cars = 100 million net profit (before interesting on long term CapEx financing assuming a delta machine cost from current new lines).

I feel like with todays announcement on the software locked S/X that 2170 cells is still 12-18 months away. Maybe 6 months from announcement.

 

[scaesare]

And yet currently they do.

Source?

 

[FlatSix911]

I feel like with todays announcement on the software locked S/X that 2170 cells is still 12-18 months away. Maybe 6 months from announcement.

Source?

Yes, It appears that the 2170 upgrade has been delayed yet again...
Tesla launches new cheaper Model S and Model X with software-limited battery pack

After Elon Musk announced that Tesla is discontinuing the 75 kWh battery pack for Model S and Model X, there was a lot of speculation about Tesla replacing it with something else. Many were hoping for a hardware upgrade, but Tesla is instead going back to its old model of “software-limited battery pack” – meaning that it is only producing one battery pack for Model S and Model X, the 100 kWh pack, but it is offering two options and one of them is limiting the energy capacity accessible.

The company is also moving away from using the energy capacity of its battery packs as part of its naming scheme. For those of us in the community who were expecting a hardware upgrade, especially a harmonization of Tesla’s battery architecture based on Model 3’s 2170 cells, this is disappointing.

 

[mongo]

I feel like with todays announcement on the software locked S/X that 2170 cells is still 12-18 months away. Maybe 6 months from announcement.

Technically, the SW locked version does not rule out a 2170 pack.
Esp given the change in naming convention, who is to say it is the same 100kWh pack?

I believe the base rationale for a 2170 version being a good idea is valid, regardless of when (or if) it is implemented.

 

[cityberty]

Technically, the SW locked version does not rule out a 2170 pack.
Esp given the change in naming convention, who is to say it is the same 100kWh pack?

I believe the base rationale for a 2170 version being a good idea is valid, regardless of when (or if) it is implemented.

Interesting take, it is odd the pricing. I guess we will know if the 2170 is in there once these new cars are delivered. Still beleive in 2170s just not for a yr. This latest move seems temporary/stopgap for now.

 

[mongo]

Interesting it is odd the pricing. I guess we will know if the 2170 is in there once these new cars are delivered. Still beleive in 2170s just not for a yr.

Yah, may not have happened, but doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Mayhaps this is a stepping stone where the 335 mile version becomes the medium range option...

(I checked for a new pack part number, but the Tesla parts site is not loading for me...)

 

[henderrj]

I fear My Hope was ill-founded. I guess I'm back to waiting another year for a 400 mile car!

 

[scaesare]

Yes, It appears that the 2170 upgrade has been delayed yet again...
Tesla launches new cheaper Model S and Model X with software-limited battery pack

After Elon Musk announced that Tesla is discontinuing the 75 kWh battery pack for Model S and Model X, there was a lot of speculation about Tesla replacing it with something else. Many were hoping for a hardware upgrade, but Tesla is instead going back to its old model of “software-limited battery pack” – meaning that it is only producing one battery pack for Model S and Model X, the 100 kWh pack, but it is offering two options and one of them is limiting the energy capacity accessible.

The company is also moving away from using the energy capacity of its battery packs as part of its naming scheme. For those of us in the community who were expecting a hardware upgrade, especially a harmonization of Tesla’s battery architecture based on Model 3’s 2170 cells, this is disappointing.

I was asking @Beltsbear for his source for asserting "And yet currently they do." in response to @mongo saying, "There is no reason for 18650 cells to ever have an older/ lesser chemistry than the current 2170 cells".

 

[cityberty]

Thank you for expounding.
I'm thinking that the pack can be updated without charges to the vehicle as a whole, but indeed , it may not be a priority,

How tho? to update the pack wouldnt they have go thru extensive testing and even re- engineering of numerous components and even have to go thru regulatory testing with NHTSA as well as the equivalent of that in many other countries and regions? I imagine there would be concern from organizations on the safety, its just not adding small components. I honestly have no idea but speculating it would be a much bigger job than you are implying.

Also to your point they could have already done a lot of that in the last 2 years alongside M3 2170 work so maybe it is imminent. But all that talk Elon had about weeks before going of business(if true) makes me doubt they had time or resources to do this.

 

[cityberty]

Yah, may not have happened, but doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Mayhaps this is a stepping stone where the 335 mile version becomes the medium range option...

(I checked for a new pack part number, but the Tesla parts site is not loading for me...)

yes would be cool if its not loading because of the update. thanks for checking

 

[emmz0r]

Yah, may not have happened, but doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Mayhaps this is a stepping stone where the 335 mile version becomes the medium range option...

(I checked for a new pack part number, but the Tesla parts site is not loading for me...)

ASY,HV BATT,100KWH,SX 1086755-00-D

 

[mongo]

How tho? to update the pack wouldnt they have go thru extensive testing and even re- engineering of numerous components and even have to go thru regulatory testing with NHTSA as well as the equivalent of that in many other countries and regions? I imagine there would be concern from organizations on the safety, its just not adding small components. I honestly have no idea but speculating it would be a much bigger job than you are implying.

Also to your point they could have already done a lot of that in the last 2 years alongside M3 2170 work so maybe it is imminent. But all that talk Elon had about weeks before going of business(if true) makes me doubt they had time or resources to do this.

Tl;dr; a module level change can save cost without impacting the pack structure, but is sub optimal. A full backwards compatible redesign, even with full crash testing, could payback in less than a year.

The external pack structure is the critical feature for the vehicle strength and safety. Here is a good pic showing the ladder frame of the pack from YouTube:

This pic actually knocks my module consolidation concept down the scale of probability a bit due to the size of the cross supports. Also shows why the 3 with the 4 continuous modules has a frame that does not require the pack for strength, a strong pack is hard to fill.

Going to 15 individual 2170 modules would be possible, not as advantageous as 4 modules, but if more automated with 2170s, still a cost savings. The cooling tubes would need to shrink due to larger cell diameter, but the 3 tubes are already narrower.

To fully cost optimize, the pack shell would need some rework. Most vehicle testing is done by the OEM (outsourced) who then keeps the records of the passing result. NHTSA and IIHS run their testing on a subset of cars based on changes.

Computer finite analysis modeling would allow the pack internal bracing to be optimized for less modules without impacting the overall strength, cell protection. Reshaping the front flare would likely improve the slight offset test results.

The best option would be a drop in replacement pack. That is the only way to remove the need to build 18650 service packs for the next X years (unless they pre build the expected quantity and keep them on maintenance chargers).

So is a backwards compatible pack overhaul cost effective?

If Tesla makes 60k-70k S/X a year going forward, every $1k in pack cost savings ($10 a kWh) is $60-$70 million in savings/ profit. That buys a lot of design and crash testing. Let's say $100k a crash test + $200k per car (prototypes) = $300k a test × 10 tests × 2 rounds (something didn't work on the 10th test the first time), $6 million in testing. Team of 10 people for a year = $5 million. Tooling $30 million. Total = $41million. Return on investment of less than one year.

This was not a priority or necessary for Tesla previously. However, I believe it is a cost save and could allow better crash results on the small offset test by not catching the barrier on impact.

 

[cityberty]

Tl;dr; a module level change can save cost without impacting the pack structure, but is sub optimal. A full backwards compatible redesign, even with full crash testing, could payback in less than a year.

The external pack structure is the critical feature for the vehicle strength and safety. Here is a good pic showing the ladder frame of the pack from YouTube:
View attachment 373080
This pic actually knocks my module consolidation concept down the scale of probability a bit due to the size of the cross supports. Also shows why the 3 with the 4 continuous modules has a frame that does not require the pack for strength, a strong pack is hard to fill.

Going to 15 individual 2170 modules would be possible, not as advantageous as 4 modules, but if more automated with 2170s, still a cost savings. The cooling tubes would need to shrink due to larger cell diameter, but the 3 tubes are already narrower.

To fully cost optimize, the pack shell would need some rework. Most vehicle testing is done by the OEM (outsourced) who then keeps the records of the passing result. NHTSA and IIHS run their testing on a subset of cars based on changes.

Computer finite analysis modeling would allow the pack internal bracing to be optimized for less modules without impacting the overall strength, cell protection. Reshaping the front flare would likely improve the slight offset test results.

The best option would be a drop in replacement pack. That is the only way to remove the need to build 18650 service packs for the next X years (unless they pre build the expected quantity and keep them on maintenance chargers).

So is a backwards compatible pack overhaul cost effective?

If Tesla makes 60k-70k S/X a year going forward, every $1k in pack cost savings ($10 a kWh) is $60-$70 million in savings/ profit. That buys a lot of design and crash testing. Let's say $100k a crash test + $200k per car (prototypes) = $300k a test × 10 tests × 2 rounds (something didn't work on the 10th test the first time), $6 million in testing. Team of 10 people for a year = $5 million. Tooling $30 million. Total = $41million. Return on investment of less than one year.

This was not a priority or necessary for Tesla previously. However, I believe it is a cost save and could allow better crash results on the small offset test by not catching the barrier on impact.

Thanks! you should tweet this to Elon! He may respond with a coming soon in time!. Altho we know his time is not relative to what we call time.