Battery is big disappointment

[R.S]

I think it's more what the 220-mile car was going to have at $35k.

Elon also said "the best car for 35k, even with no options." Really? $35k gets you a black car with aero wheel covers (what happen to "no weird-mobiles"?), no power nor heated seats, and a center console without a top. Was he talking about the best electric car for $35k, perhaps?

The Audi A4 is just as fast with many more base features at $36,000 (12-way power driver seat, leather heated seats, sunroof, LED lighting, Android Auto/Apple Car Play, etc . in the base). And, hey. We've been complaining for months--you can't say we just started griping now.

IMO, Elon brought this on himself. He didn't need to say "best 35k car, even with no options" and he certainly did not need to compare the Model 3 to the Audi A4. I pin this on him.

Battery upgrades and EAP/FSD pricing: I fully expected and predicted these. But the options: ugh, what a crapshoot. Everyone line up to please pay your required 20% margin to the investors,

You realize they're charging more for white paint than Mercedes, Audi, and BMW? Is Tesla paint that great? No. This is margin recouperation time.

Tesla needs the money to build the Model Y and it's alien dreadnought. You as a Model 3 customer should happily pay for the car that will help bring sustainable transport to the masses...

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

The evidence so far comes from:

1. JavaScript buried in a Tesla web page that implies the Model 3 uses 237 Wh per mile.

2. Tesla says the standard battery Model 3 adds 30 miles per hour of charging at 32A and 240V. Under the same conditions, GM says the Bolt EV adds 25 miles.

Both of these suggest the Model 3 is 15-20% more efficient than the Bolt EV which is EPA rated at 110 MPGe highway, 128 MPGe city, and 119 MPGe combined.

1) Well the JavaScript leak we really don't know because the model s/x numbers were off too. It just doesn't make sense.

2) 240V*32A = 7680W

In 1 hour you add 7680Wh

If you can go 30 miles on that it means your efficiency is 256wh/mile.

This number already doesn't match the JavaScript leak. Say this number is right, you would need 56KWh usable meaning 60KWh on the model 3 on the 220 miles model 3. Or 79Kwh usable in the 310 version. So 55kwh and 80kwh if you round down or 60kwh 85kwh if you more conservative in your calculation.

3) In any case even if the model s is 15-20% more efficient compared to the bolt the number suggest 55kwh and 80kwh. So there is something not adding up. I'll wait until we get the official EPA numbers. We can all speculate but until we get something official we can come to any conclusion.

 

[R.S]

1) Well the JavaScript leak we really don't know because the model s/x numbers were off too. It just doesn't make sense.

2) 240V*32A = 7680W

In 1 hour you add 7680Wh

If you can go 30 miles on that it means your efficiency is 256wh/mile.

This number already doesn't match the JavaScript leak. Say this number is right, you would need 56KWh usable meaning 60KWh on the model 3 on the 220 miles model 3. Or 79Kwh usable in the 310 version. So 55kwh and 80kwh if you round down or 60kwh 85kwh if you more conservative in your calculation.

3) In any case even if the model s is 15-20% more efficient compared to the bolt the number suggest 55kwh and 80kwh. So there is something not adding up. I'll wait until we get the official EPA numbers. We can all speculate but until we get something official we can come to any conclusion.

I worried that the speculation wouldn't stop. But I really didn't expect kWh to be something we would still talk about...

 

[Jeff N]

I worried that the speculation wouldn't stop. But I really didn't expect kWh to be something we would still talk about...

Really?

 

[Shock-On-T]

Sure we do. Acceleration and charge rate are superior in the bigger pack. The limiting variable is C rate.

No, there are just more cells.

 

[electracity]

No, there are just more cells.

Yes, cells are C rate limited. More cells, more total power in and out.

 

[dgpcolorado]

On average AC uses 3kWh. Two hours of driving will eat up over 10% of range...

That seems high to me. I would guess that maintaining steady-state temperatures during long range driving takes closer to 1.5 kW and eats up closer to 5% in most conditions. At least, that's what I see in my Bolt EV.

If anything, 3 kW is an underestimate for AC IME. I do get about a 10% range hit in my S60 when driving in hot weather at highway speeds for longish trip legs (120-140 miles). Why? It's not just the cabin AC load, the compressor is running full blast to keep the motor/inverter/battery cool.

BTW, it is quite easy to get an idea of the AC power use: just shift to neutral and read it off the power meter. I've done that and my 2014 sucks down a lot of power in hot weather highway speed driving. Perhaps the newer cars have more efficient AC; I couldn't say.

 

[sorka]

Not reading through the whole thread, but my take on this is that the 310 mile battery is such a huge upgrade for a relatively small amount that almost everyone will actually buy this one instead even those who would have been happy with the 220 mile one.

So now I guess we know where all the 85KWH batteries that are now going into the 75 are coming from. The 75 switched over to getting the 85 a month or so ago and is software limited to the the 75. The 85 which is really an 81 kWH battery is just enough to push a 3 to 310 miles of range.

 

[Trancela]

It's the motors. An induction motor starts to loose power after a certain RPM. In the case of a P100D, the motor power starts dropping after 100mph. If it had two gears per motor, it could be quicker above 100mph.

Yes of course. But it also is pulling the throttle back due to huge amounts of heat generated in the batteries, which cannot be cooled fast enough - up to 78 W per cell. The software is throttling it back. Of course the motor and inverter heats up as well, and that is another reason to pull back.

Do this test - take the 100L and do 1/4 mile runs at max power, one after the another. After the first run, come to a stop, and immediately start the 2nd run, and then 3rd run, so forth. You will find that as you progress, the acceleration time decreases, even though energy level decreases marginally. The motor and the batteries and the inverter will be too hot. Which kicks in first is an interesting question.

 

[Trancela]

Doing this is not practical.

If the 18650 is fit into a 2170 can, then the form factor is the same. Panasonic could even fit the sandwich into a 2170. Can be done quite well.

 

[Trancela]

Not reading through the whole thread, but my take on this is that the 310 mile battery is such a huge upgrade for a relatively small amount that almost everyone will actually buy this one instead even those who would have been happy with the 220 mile one.

So now I guess we know where all the 85KWH batteries that are now going into the 75 are coming from. The 75 switched over to getting the 85 a month or so ago and is software limited to the the 75. The 85 which is really an 81 kWH battery is just enough to push a 3 to 310 miles of range.

Not really. The T3 310 is based on the larger 2170 batteries. While the TS is based on the 18650. The modules are radically different and one does not fit the other. Also, there is no reason to believe that the T3 has enough room for 85 kWh. More likely, it is just for 75 kWh (actually 78), but due to future cell improvements, it will approach 85 kWh.

 

[sorka]

Not really. The T3 310 is based on the larger 2170 batteries. While the TS is based on the 18650. The modules are radically different and one does not fit the other. Also, there is no reason to believe that the T3 has enough room for 85 kWh. More likely, it is just for 75 kWh (actually 78), but due to future cell improvements, it will approach 85 kWh.

Cool

The 2170 batteries are quite a bit of larger than the 1860s. How are they going to get the same cooling rates with the core centers overheating??

 

[Trancela]

For the 220, what would real world range probably be in winter months in the northeast assuming mostly 75-80 mph on highway?

If my daily commute is about 100 miles round trip (with no charger available at work), do I almost certainly need the 310?

You could probably live with T3 220 on the coldest days. You could also charge 110V L1 at work.

 

[Trancela]

The issue you were referring to was what was limiting the 0-60 times. While it's a reasonable guess it may be the cells, we don't know that. It could be other driveline units, or even programming for all we know.

While there is indeed a comparative difference between the large and small packs, that doesn't mean the cells are confirmed to be the limiting factor in either.

Witness the Model S where cars of all sizes have received performance upgrades in the past via programming alone.

If the T3.220 is being supplied with 18650 cells fit in a 2170 can, or with early-run 'low-capacity' 2170s, then it is at its limit of 51 kWh (or 54 with buffering). Overtime, as the 2170 improves, the T3.220 range will increase to let's say 265, but will be held back by software at 220, with a software upgrade premium to 265. Once the 2170 production yield stabilizes for the 4.9 Ah full capacity cell, then they will all be at 310, with nasty software crippling for the 220 and 265.

 

[Trancela]

Cool

The 2170 batteries are quite a bit of larger than the 1860s. How are they going to get the same cooling rates with the core centers overheating??

I suspect the newer chemistry also increases the C factor above the current 3C, and reduces the internal impedance. Such as is with the 5C Samsung 18650.

 

[Speight]

A 55 kWh battery with about 52 kWh usable sounds the most likely as of now.

If this article from Mashable is accurate, the larger battery has only three modules (!) and so the smaller battery is likely 2/3 the capacity of the larger one, or closer to 50 kW. Would be consistent with the smaller car being slightly more efficient due to the lower weight.

Tesla Model 3: Everything you need to know

 

[shokunin]

No, there are just more cells.

Voltage will likely be higher as well, which could also affect supercharging rates.

 

[Trancela]

What's funny is someone thought the upgrade from 220 miles to 310 miles should cost less than $9000. Lesser improvements in range in the S cost more than that. Again the unrealistic expectations of some Model 3 reservation holders are astonishing.

Assuming the two battery sizes for the T3 are 51 kWh and 73 kWh (or 54 and 77 after including unused buffers), then the difference of 23 kWh will be made of 96x43x23/77 = 1,233 cells. Also assume that all the electronics and motor are identical - the charger being the exception.

Based on the price of an 18650 today, the cost of a 2170 cells (at 4.9 Ah) is prorated at 2.75 x 4.9 / 3.4 = $3.97 or $3.00 internally.

Thus the marginal cost to Tesla for the 310 mile upgrade is about $3,700, just for the cells. Add to this the charger and possibly other components.

 

[Cloxxki]

actually its other way if Tesla produced P85DL with power tailored 18650 cells like Samsung 18650-30Q, but almost nobody would buy Models S which have 20% less range to get some decrease in 0-60 time

What about an 85 car that charges at double the speed of a 100?

 

[Trancela]

Problem with the chart that shows price per mile of range is that it is a linear model, while we value range not linearly but logarithmically. The first mile has a lot more value than mile 101. And mile 101 has a lot more value than mile 201. In other words, an EV with range 100 miles is worth a lot more than half the value of an EV with 200 miles.

I have depreciated this chart for a logarithmically based value. Below, I have assumed that the 100th mile is worth only 1/3 of the first mile. After normalizing (for the T3SR) we get the following alternate ranking:

The T3.220 becomes of the highest value while the T3.310 slides down, and so do the TS models. The Ioniq becomes the 2nd best value.