Battery is big disappointment

[Xenius]

I think this is easily the most disliked post I've seen yet at TMC

To OP, don't worry, I don't even have 220 miles on a 100% charge in my Model S and it's PLENTY! Would more be better? Sure!

To give you an idea I could pay 2k (2,300 or so with tax) for an extra 30 miles of range (60kwh -> 75kwh upgrade). That's way cheaper than the original 9k unlock price, and I still can't justify it based on the fact that I don't need it.

 

[JeffK]

I am shocked how people are upset with the battery when Tesla hasn't mentioned anything about the battery. Nothing on the website or anything official.

I think they are more disappointed on range on the smaller battery regardless of actual capacity. We still don't have official EPA numbers yet either.

 

[bonaire]

Many road trippers might need this or especially travelling in areas where superchargers are sparse. Outside the major highway systems, there parts of the US where you'd be cutting it close with 300 mi on a round trip.

Right, got it. However, that is edge-case scenarios. Why couldn't someone rent a car for such a trip or take the other family car (ie. "the family truckster"). More likely apartment dwellers need big battery to drive all week and recharge on a single weekly trip to a nearby supercharger. I think Musk said something about not having the space under the floorboard in the Model 3 to go to 90 or 100 - also they would be glad to sell an MS with 100kWh (or even bigger some day soon) to someone who "needs" range. But I prescribe that it's a possibility that people will be rational and have another family car for trips or even consider renting for practicality. Not everyone is a binary thinker (ie. BEV or nothing).

 

[Garlan Garner]

I think they are more disappointed on range on the smaller battery regardless of actual capacity. We still don't have official EPA numbers yet either.

If they are disappointed enough then they shouldn't buy the car. OR get the larger range car.

There are options folks.

 

[bonaire]

I think they are more disappointed on range on the smaller battery regardless of actual capacity. We still don't have official EPA numbers yet either.

At this point, the smaller battery "doesn't exist" until they start delivery of the base model. This reminds me of the 40 kWh Model S (and battery swap). if they wait long enough, it's a possibility that enough move to the larger battery to get a Model 3 that they cancel the base unit because "nobody wants it". But the small battery fits so many driving profiles of commuters and regular consumers that it must not be cancelled.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Right, got it. However, that is edge-case scenarios. Why couldn't someone rent a car for such a trip or take the other family car (ie. "the family truckster"). More likely apartment dwellers need big battery to drive all week and recharge on a single weekly trip to a nearby supercharger. I think Musk said something about not having the space under the floorboard in the Model 3 to go to 90 or 100.

Musk did refer to the fact that there isn't enough space for a 100kwh battery in the Model 3 WITH TODAYS BATTERY DENSITIES.

Teslas aren't solutions for everyone. Apartment dwellers will have to make that determination for themselves.

 

[Garlan Garner]

At this point, the smaller battery "doesn't exist" until they start delivery of the base model. This reminds me of the 40 kWh Model S (and battery swap). if they wait long enough, it's a possibility that enough move to the larger battery to get a Model 3 that they cancel the base unit because "nobody wants it".

That's true and fair.

 

[JeffK]

Right, got it. However, that is edge-case scenarios. Why couldn't someone rent a car for such a trip or take the other family car (ie. "the family truckster"). More likely apartment dwellers need big battery to drive all week and recharge on a single weekly trip to a nearby supercharger. I think Musk said something about not having the space under the floorboard in the Model 3 to go to 90 or 100 - also they would be glad to sell an MS with 100kWh (or even bigger some day soon) to someone who "needs" range. But I prescribe that it's a possibility that people will be rational and have another family car for trips or even consider renting for practicality. Not everyone is a binary thinker (ie. BEV or nothing).

This is a very similar argument to using hybrids. The only way to move to a world of electrified sustainable transportation is if that niche of super long range EV is filled or superchargers are more plentiful in remote areas. Whether or not that's a rentable EV or a self driving EV that will pick up you and your family is another story.

I agree renters and city dwellers without places to charge will be the first to want longer range EVs.

 

[silvermaxd]

The small battery only 220 miles and $9000 for upgraded battery. Wow, not great.

yeah that was a big disappointment...and the $9000 extra for a bump up is nuts

 

[bonaire]

This is a very similar argument to using hybrids. The only way to move to a world of electrified sustainable transportation is if that niche of super long range EV is filled or superchargers are more plentiful in remote areas. Whether or not that's a rentable EV or a self driving EV that will pick up you and your family is another story.

I agree renters and city dwellers without places to charge will be the first to want longer range EVs.

Tesla has a patent on a "range battery" - that is the Li-Air scenario where you load light-weight "disposable" high capacity Li-Air battery in the Frunk or whatever and use it up, stop and replace it along the way. If you could add a 150-lb 50kWh battery into a cargo area and do a trip, things change. Would need a plethora of service stations, of course and it's a mild hassle but definitely doable. You don't need permanently-mounted 100kWh packs for your daily 40 mile drives if you plan to take a few long-distance vacations a year. That's not sustainable. Putting in 100kWh into a car now for the performance aspects for people who drive around town and do launches with their friends - also not sustainable. it uses up batteries too fast. The idea of the Volt (60-mile range + gas extender) can be done with batteries only if there is a high-capacity Li-Air temporary range battery solution for those occasional trips. But now, people are buying and getting into the mindset that cars must have 400-mile range "on board, at all times" - perhaps for those unplanned emergencies where they have to drive their BEV in a pinch off into the distance to get to a sick family member, etc. The design of the 100kWh on board battery (to me) is actually not a truthfully sustainable act. The Volt's smallish battery with 3000+ charge NMC batteries and the gas tank (though more complex with engine) is far more suited for the normal guy who commutes his 40-50 miles a day and goes on a trip a few times a year. Some blended model is solved with high capacity "range battery packs". You can build a lot more cars that are electric if the battery input parts are spread out among more cars. And the price drops. As you see, the $9000 upgrade battery price going from base to enhanced model, in reverse, lowers the price of the current Model 3 by $9000 to get the smaller battery. I think a lot (majority??) of the Model 3 reservation holders want the base model - because it makes more sense to them. Superchargers are growing in number and spread out so that 200-miles is farther than the distance between SCs. How many just want to replace their 80-90 mile range Leaf with a base-model 3 with 220 mile range, no Autopilot and a price tag of just over $35,000. But does Tesla actually want to serve these customers?

Tesla obtains patent for charging metal-air battery technology that could enable longer range

I thought city dwellers and apartment folks are going to be the first ones to "get into" the whole ride-sharing paradigm, escewing ownership entirely and just "hail" their ride-share as needed?

 

[JeffK]

I think a lot (majority??) of the Model 3 reservation holders want the base model - because it makes more sense to them.

I disagree about it making more sense, I think it'll mainly come down to price. If you gave consumers (especially American consumers) two options 220 mi and 310 mi at the same price point they'd pick the 310 mi. The general public is still hesitant on EVs and range. The people on this forum are generally more educated about EVs and Tesla than the rest of the population. If people can comfortably afford the 310 mi version with the options they want, they will likely take it.

 

[bonaire]

To a consumer, they are buying a "bigger gas tank". It's not yet in the consumer's mindset that $9000 spend (plus loan interest minus depreciation) is truly a comfortable spend. The value per-mile of extra range differs to the buyer who is just buying their first EV and wanted to get in with that "cool Tesla at $35k". Still, 220 Miles is a lot of range. it's just under the range of the first MS 85. Some 85 owners are getting less than that now typically. Almost all Leaf, i3, Volt and other owners would be thrilled with 220mile range - because they know how to get far more range out of it than the EPA rating. I know Volt owners with 2011-2012 miles with their 35 mile EPA rating getting up to 50 miles on a charge in the mild summer weather. So, 220 miles can give 250-270 miles of actual range. I think most people in the Model 3 lineup of reservations will be happy with that. Just wondering if they will actually get a chance to buy it at the $35k price before the Federal Tax Credit runs out on the Tesla brand. Sustainable-leaning people who are not very wealthy are looking for the best price possible - including one guy I know. He thinks the Model 3 will have a $250/month lease price with the base model. I think he's never going to see that. He has a reservation. He cannot afford much more than 250/month but drives a Leaf now on a lease - and we know those run out. If he is thinking that the 250/mo is going to happen now but then it doesn't, what's the base-model buyer going to do? I do think a lot of Volt/Leaf/other lessees are out there trying to time their lease ending with availability of an affordable Model 3 lease to continue-on with. They want the warranty without the ownership requirements of fully paying it off.

 

[silvermaxd]

your preference couldn't been saved....nice grammer

 

[scaesare]

yeah that was a big disappointment...and the $9000 extra for a bump up is nuts

Or, another way to look at it:

For another $9k you can buy an entire Nissan Leaf and stuff it in to your Model 3's pack.

 

[JeffK]

To a consumer, they are buying a "bigger gas tank". It's not yet in the consumer's mindset that $9000 spend (plus loan interest minus depreciation) is truly a comfortable spend. The value per-mile of extra range differs to the buyer who is just buying their first EV and wanted to get in with that "cool Tesla at $35k". Still, 220 Miles is a lot of range. it's just under the range of the first MS 85. Some 85 owners are getting less than that now typically. Almost all Leaf, i3, Volt and other owners would be thrilled with 220mile range - because they know how to get far more range out of it than the EPA rating. I know Volt owners with 2011-2012 miles with their 35 mile EPA rating getting up to 50 miles on a charge in the mild summer weather. So, 220 miles can give 250-270 miles of actual range. I think most people in the Model 3 lineup of reservations will be happy with that. Just wondering if they will actually get a chance to buy it at the $35k price before the Federal Tax Credit runs out on the Tesla brand. Sustainable-leaning people who are not very wealthy are looking for the best price possible - including one guy I know. He thinks the Model 3 will have a $250/month lease price with the base model. I think he's never going to see that. He has a reservation. He cannot afford much more than 250/month but drives a Leaf now on a lease - and we know those run out. If he is thinking that the 250/mo is going to happen now but then it doesn't, what's the base-model buyer going to do? I do think a lot of Volt/Leaf/other lessees are out there trying to time their lease ending with availability of an affordable Model 3 lease to continue-on with. They want the warranty without the ownership requirements of fully paying it off.

You don't have to take my word for it. It's well known that the 3 things consumers as themselves regarding EVs is:

• How fast?
• How far?
• How much?

Each consumer will have to decide what works best for themselves.

 

[Cloxxki]

Musk did refer to the fact that there isn't enough space for a 100kwh battery in the Model 3 WITH TODAYS BATTERY DENSITIES.

Teslas aren't solutions for everyone. Apartment dwellers will have to make that determination for themselves.

Seeing how Model 3 is mostly smaller than Model S in overall width and bonnet length, it's clear to me Tesla just chose a super simple, CHEAP car layout which unsurprisingly leaves little space for a simply shaped battery pack. In Model S, they maximized battery volume AND frunk/truck space. Best in class all around. In Model 3, they moved the motors inward of the wheelbase, did't add the double stack of modules up front, and all that in a narrower car. They simply made ZERO effort to get more than 75kWh in, the way I see it. If the cells had worked out less well, they'd have taken 70kWh as well. Reaching 300+ mile range seems to be a bonus.
If a competing brand were to design a car solely with the purpose to out-do Tesla, it would easily fit 100kWh. Have a bigger frunk, still good trunk, etc. I can imagine the likes of Audi and BMW caring much more about range (at 170kph) than Tesla. They have other customers to sell to. Imagine a slighly narrower and longer car. Aero design focused on high speed drag. Weight doesn't matter as much, Germans are not stuck in city traffic all they. They're leaping between big cities. I am simplifying, obviously.

 

[JeffK]

CHEAP car

When referring to Model 3 we say "lower cost" We don't want to give the wrong impression. haha

 

[tsla007]

I disagree about it making more sense, I think it'll mainly come down to price. If you gave consumers (especially American consumers) two options 220 mi and 310 mi at the same price point they'd pick the 310 mi. The general public is still hesitant on EVs and range. The people on this forum are generally more educated about EVs and Tesla than the rest of the population. If people can comfortably afford the 310 mi version with the options they want, they will likely take it.

AGREED!
Buyers know Tesla can use the money for more SC stations and expanding service centers and such. I'll give them that extra dough to continue to expand. Get that 25% profit margin or 20% and shut those employees who are screaming up. They've worked hard and deserve reward to get where the company is today.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Seeing how Model 3 is mostly smaller than Model S in overall width and bonnet length, it's clear to me Tesla just chose a super simple, CHEAP car layout which unsurprisingly leaves little space for a simply shaped battery pack. In Model S, they maximized battery volume AND frunk/truck space. Best in class all around. In Model 3, they moved the motors inward of the wheelbase, did't add the double stack of modules up front, and all that in a narrower car. They simply made ZERO effort to get more than 75kWh in, the way I see it. If the cells had worked out less well, they'd have taken 70kWh as well. Reaching 300+ mile range seems to be a bonus.
If a competing brand were to design a car solely with the purpose to out-do Tesla, it would easily fit 100kWh. Have a bigger frunk, still good trunk, etc. I can imagine the likes of Audi and BMW caring much more about range (at 170kph) than Tesla. They have other customers to sell to. Imagine a slighly narrower and longer car. Aero design focused on high speed drag. Weight doesn't matter as much, Germans are not stuck in city traffic all they. They're leaping between big cities. I am simplifying, obviously.

I believe "RANGE" was Tesla's objective.....NOT battery size.

So... the way I see it is.....Tesla said "so long as they are able to get to 300+ miles in range....who cares if only half of the chassis gets filled with batteries"?

 

[chronopc]

Can you quote me where I said anything of the sort? Didn't think so.

Here's a recap of the conversation:








After this you make an assumption that that Elon was speaking about a Bolt for some reason:

Apparently you can't read that you mentioned the Bolt multiple times.

Anyways the OP said that $9k to go from 220 to 310 isn't great, but that is not true. If you based how much it cost on the Model S to go from 259 to 330, it's $23k. People have unrealistic assumptions of what Tesla is trying to do with the Model 3. Tesla's goal with the Model 3 is to make a car that cost half as much as the Model S and they did that. The cost to upgrade to long range on the Model 3 is less than half of that on the Model S.

Is there any other car that even gives you an option to go past 300 miles on a single charge on the market for less than $9k? No there isn't. In fact only Tesla even produce an EV that can even get to 300 for any price. So yes, Tesla sucks. Don't buy the car. No one is forcing you to.