Model 3 will have a 20% energy density improvement according to JB straubel at Intersolar. [Indirect source]
If that means 60 kWh base, That would give the Model 3 a 250ish mile range.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If that means 60 kWh base, That would give the Model 3 a 250ish mile range.
MassModel3
Member
To reach the initial pricing requirements, the base model will likely get around 200 miles when driving at 60 or 65 for the EPA rating. Driving at 55 will stretch that a small amount, but that's about it.
There is a good chance that a large enough battery could be an option when the Model 3 is first released, but if not it will simply happen as technology improves. Elon recently said battery technology is improving at roughly 5% per year, so it'll get to that 300 mile mark eventually, but I personally think we'll see it when the Model 3 is first released and I think we'll see 400 miles in 4 or 5 years.
BrianC
Member
Everyone seems to be forgetting the M3 is going to be a smaller car that will take less energy to get/keep moving. I could see a 60pack being the MAX.
Candleflame
Active Member
That's exactly the problem. For "keeping moving" the weight of the car doesn't really matter all that much. For City stop and go traffic the weight will make a big difference in energy consumption but for crusing speed (where the range really matters for long range travel) the energy savings from a lighter car will be neglible. A reason why the Model S can get away with being so heavy.
ryanjm
Tesla Podcast Host
Given how quickly Tesla has been progressing, plus Gigafactory, plus Elon's comments on battery advancements and minimum Angie bar for the base Model 3, I suspect a 220-240 mile EPA base model, but a 280-300 mile option as well.
Simultaneously, I expect a 400-mile option to be made available on Model S so as to keep the S as the more obviously "premium" model.
Simultaneously, I expect a 400-mile option to be made available on Model S so as to keep the S as the more obviously "premium" model.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I think EPA rating will be around 4 m/kWh of useable battery capacity - considering all the smaller EVs on the road today (Leaf is 3.8). So, I'd expect 70 kWh (65 useable ?) to give about 260 miles. I expect the base to be around 60 kWh (55 useable) - so that EPA rating is nicely above 200 miles.
Tesla my be able to get better m/kWh by compromising on lot of other things - but my guess is they'd rather put a bit more battery than compromise on looks or interior space or performance.
Last edited:
20% smaller means about a 20% efficiency improvement (weight/drag area) which I already took into account.
I doubt that the Model 3 is going to be more efficient than a Leaf - it's supposed to be bigger and have higher performance as you say.
Hi,
On this page you can find drag coefficient numbers for many cars. Model S is 0.24. Nissan Leaf is 0.28. Drag coefficient means the percentage of the frontal area that counts as a drag area. For Model S, only 24% of the frontal area counts (frontal area = the area of the silhouette of the car when looking from the front). This is a great success rate. I would imagine they would repeat exactly the same rate. Therefore even if frontal area of the Model 3 was exactly the same as Leaf, the drag area (drag area = drag coefficient * frontal area) would be less. In other words, yes Model 3 will have less air drag than Leaf.
On this page you can find drag coefficient numbers for many cars. Model S is 0.24. Nissan Leaf is 0.28. Drag coefficient means the percentage of the frontal area that counts as a drag area. For Model S, only 24% of the frontal area counts (frontal area = the area of the silhouette of the car when looking from the front). This is a great success rate. I would imagine they would repeat exactly the same rate. Therefore even if frontal area of the Model 3 was exactly the same as Leaf, the drag area (drag area = drag coefficient * frontal area) would be less. In other words, yes Model 3 will have less air drag than Leaf.
Last edited:
muleferg
Active Member
If they would only do something about the weirdmobile headlights and its ugly butt.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It's 544km (338 miles) on the Japanese cycle (Leaf currently gets 228km / 142 miles), which translates to 200 miles of EPA range (given 84 miles EPA for current Leaf). Given the round number of 200 EPA miles, I suspect this is just a conceptual model (shows what their goal is).
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
. That's incorrect. There's more energy per cell, but if you do the math the fact that less cells fit in the same area offsets the larger cell size.
OP: M3 is supposed to require 20% smaller batteries and with the GF they're going to be at least 30% cheaper, plus any cost reductions due to cell chemistry improvements. So One way to take advantage of that combination of factors is to produce cars with about 200 miles of range for as low a price as possible. But they could also choose to produce a M3 with 300-400 miles of range for a relatively affordable price.
My dream car is a M3 PL100D (performance ludicrous 100 kW dual motor) with about 400 miles of range. Maybe we should make a poll or create a petition.
MitchJi,
I agree with you but it is unclear what you said. It looks as if you are objecting to 20700 form factor. I want to clarify:
I agree with you but it is unclear what you said. It looks as if you are objecting to 20700 form factor. I want to clarify:
That's correct. It might be 20700 or 20720, somewhere around that size. (18650= 18mm x 65mm, 20700= 20mm x 70mm)
That's not the case. Changing cell size doesn't have any affect on volumetric energy density, Wh/litre. The reason why they are changing it is because it will lower production time and costs. I'm pretty sure the production robots will make an 20700 cell in same time as an 18650 cell. But you need less 20700 cells.
Elon has specifically stated in the past that the model 3 will have a larger battery pack option but he has not said what the battery pack sizes will be.
Model 3 Battery Size - Page 2
Model 3 Battery Size - Page 2
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The surface area to volume ratio of a cylinder is 2/radius + 2/height. That means for a 18650 it is 0.253 and 20700 it is 0.229 (using the nameplate numbers, a 18650 is actually 18.6 mm diameter, 65.2 height). That means assuming the same casing material thickness, the 20700 will have less casing material for a given volume. That might help gravimetric energy density somewhat. But you are right that it shouldn't help volumetric energy density much.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Smaller 3 will not have the same CD. If it did the head space would be unacceptable. As I wrote it is possible to make 3 more efficient but not without any compromises.
Here's my thoughts... Don't hit me if you disagree lol:
1. By the time 3 arrives, the 85 pack will be able to fit in the space of the threes battery space
2.the car inherently is lighter (battery compaction and smaller car etc) yes COD is higher
3.and here's my big issue: supercharging! There is no way tesla will launch the three with slower super charging then my current 60. This means an 85 pack will most likely be needed IF they want to charge even faster than what we have now on the 85. They need a car that makes the other companies look stupid again. 300 miles, more storage, looks cooler, seats 5, charges to 80% in 25 minutes, infrastructure is on place (less than 200miles means current sc won't be of use), and that is just the base model!
It will happen.
and that's how they will do 500k cars.
1. By the time 3 arrives, the 85 pack will be able to fit in the space of the threes battery space
2.the car inherently is lighter (battery compaction and smaller car etc) yes COD is higher
3.and here's my big issue: supercharging! There is no way tesla will launch the three with slower super charging then my current 60. This means an 85 pack will most likely be needed IF they want to charge even faster than what we have now on the 85. They need a car that makes the other companies look stupid again. 300 miles, more storage, looks cooler, seats 5, charges to 80% in 25 minutes, infrastructure is on place (less than 200miles means current sc won't be of use), and that is just the base model!
It will happen.
and that's how they will do 500k cars.I guess you mean it will have higher than 0.24 drag coefficient. You could be right. It might be somewhere between Model S' 0.24 and Leaf's 0.28. Currently the drag area for Model S is like this:
Drag area = drag coefficient * frontal area
Model S Drag area = 0.24 * 25.2 square feet = 6.048 square feet = 0.562 square metre
Model 3 could be something like this, with slightly worse drag coefficient and a little less frontal area:
Model 3 Drag area = 0.26 * 22.7 square feet = 5.902 square feet = 0.548 square metre
In any case, the drag area of Model 3 should be less than Model S. The Nissan Leaf drag area is 0.725 square metre which is worse than the larger Model S and will be even worse than the Model 3.
Similar threads
