Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Battery package /size conjecture

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The more I think about what Tesla might do, the more I think that because the M3 has physically less room for batteries than the MS, there will be far less kWh delta between smallest to largest. I think that this means 2 physical configurations, but MANY range tiers/selling opportunities (via software). So I think that the 2 physical configurations will be 60 and 75. There will be a 55 kWh model eventually, when Tesla finally offers a $35k M3 sometime next year just to check that box. The 55 kWh car will use the 60 kWh pack and is a loss leader for Tesla that will have limited availability and popularity, it just checks the $35k and 215 miles box, but not very common. So the 60 is used on the 55 and 60 and still gets tesla an opportunity to up sell the 55 folks later for more money with minimal exposure if they don't bite. Plus the 60 will beat the Chevy Bolt at introduction. Then the 75 is used on 65, 70,and 75 with future up sell potential on the lower 2. Finally, another tweak to my theory is they might use 70 as the 2nd size and only later introduce a 3rd physical 75 pack as something new once the car is established and they want to do something "next".
 
Just hold out. Speculation won't help with your potential decision. Wait for the final details to come out and then make a decision. I believe software updates are unlikely given that they were discontinued on the S and X. If it was worth it financially, they would have still been offering it.
 
I can imaging a 60 as a nice base, with limited options for the value buyer.
Also an 80 with higher value options (all wheel drive, better lighting, stereo, wheels, suspension, seating, etc.) for the premium buyer.
80 might have faster charging, better air filtration, better performance/handling, stereo, and higher levels of auto driving assist as well.
 
I can imaging a 60 as a nice base, with limited options for the value buyer.
Also an 80 with higher value options (all wheel drive, better lighting, stereo, wheels, suspension, seating, etc.) for the premium buyer.
80 might have faster charging, better air filtration, better performance/handling, stereo, and higher levels of auto driving assist as well.
Why do you keep saying 80 when you know that according to Elon there can be no 80 kWh version in the near future?
 
Again, not that I have many in agreement, but I think the strategy is this :
  • Release 60 kWh model first which forces buyers to pay $x, xxx for the 5 kWh upgrade
  • This gives range of greater than Chevrolet Bolt, say 240 or 245 miles range. Tesla claims victory here.
  • 55 kWh does not show up until much later next year to fulfill the promise of a $35k car that goes 215+ miles. This configuration is delayed, quiet and may be just software limited from 60 kWh. The model 3 has already long "beaten" the Bolt as far as the world will remember.
  • Tesla might price this "5 kWh" upgrade at $2.5k which prices the M3 equal to the MSRP of the Bolt!
 
Again, not that I have many in agreement, but I think the strategy is this :
  • Release 60 kWh model first which forces buyers to pay $x, xxx for the 5 kWh upgrade
  • This gives range of greater than Chevrolet Bolt, say 240 or 245 miles range. Tesla claims victory here.
  • 55 kWh does not show up until much later next year to fulfill the promise of a $35k car that goes 215+ miles. This configuration is delayed, quiet and may be just software limited from 60 kWh. The model 3 has already long "beaten" the Bolt as far as the world will remember.
  • Tesla might price this "5 kWh" upgrade at $2.5k which prices the M3 equal to the MSRP of the Bolt!
I, for one, am in disagreement. You are literally describing the compliance car model followed for years by GM. Put out the bare minimum to fulfil obligations.

Elon is competitive and based on that alone, we can say that for $35,000 Model 3 will beat the Bolt's range for the lower price. For the price of the one and only upgrade, it will put the range near 300 miles. There's going to be no in between as it just adds complexity and provides very little value.
 
I, for one, am in disagreement. You are literally describing the compliance car model followed for years by GM. Put out the bare minimum to fulfil obligations.
... it will put the range near 300 miles. There's going to be no in between as it just adds complexity and provides very little value.

Nothing like compliance cars. The model 3 will be an amazing car. Think more like compliant to his own promises which are much more than compliance... And tesla has to watch out for 300 miles because the model 3 must be inferior to the S and X. I don't like it, but that's how Tesla talks.

Personally I think they ditched the idea of the 55kWh battery for good, simply because it will be perceived as inferior to the Bolt 60kWh battery, regardless of range. They will either have a 60 as a base or they will one-up the Bolt with a 65.

That's why the roll the car out with 60. Only it does not have to be the $35k one that beats the Bolt. Especially when the 55 kWh one eventually does show up to check the box.

By the way, I don't *want* to believe what I am suggesting, but I do. I sure hope Tesla brings out the $35k M3 with 60 KWh... But the way I see it, they don't have to and, thus, will not.
 
I think that the choice to offer 60 kWh with a 75 kWh battery is one of Teslas biggest mistake they have done and something they will never do again, they shipped a lot of batteries that they never got paid for. If they did offer 55 kWh
, how many do you believe would feel the difference to a 60 and pay that extra money? It will only mean that tesla will ship 5 kWh extra battery to several thousands of cars without getting any money for it. I believe that they will offer 60 kWh for the base model at $35k.
 
Make no mistake, the price of the 75 kWh battery was always included in base price of the car. The upgrade was pure profit.
Not exactly. They were more likely making estimates on what percentage purchased the upgrade, and when, and factored that into their pricing. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "Historically, 60% of purchasers with the option make a $5k upgrade, so we can assume it adds $3k to the price of a car even if it's not at the time of sale."

Of course, they can't recognize that on the income statement right away, but in terms of the cash flow that they expect to receive, it's very real.

You're right that Tesla probably evaluated the downside, because upgrade % assumptions are best estimates, but influenced by many variables and so they must have considered scenarios in which the upgrade % is higher or lower than what they believe.
 
Not exactly. They were more likely making estimates on what percentage purchased the upgrade, and when, and factored that into their pricing. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "Historically, 60% of purchasers with the option make a $5k upgrade, so we can assume it adds $3k to the price of a car even if it's not at the time of sale."

Of course, they can't recognize that on the income statement right away, but in terms of the cash flow that they expect to receive, it's very real.

You're right that Tesla probably evaluated the downside, because upgrade % assumptions are best estimates, but influenced by many variables and so they must have considered scenarios in which the upgrade % is higher orthe 75 lower than what they believe.
I was being exact... the 75 kWh limited to 60 kWh base model made 15% gross margins.... 100% of the cost was paid for by the purchaser.
The actual cost of the 75 kWh was for sure included in the base price. While this reduces revenue and overall profits if buyers don't upgrade, they weren't selling it at a loss.

Here's part of the Q2 2016 financial call:

John J. Murphy - Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Good afternoon. The first question is, as we think about the 60 kilowatt-hour versions of the Model S and Model X, I'm just curious if you could talk about the profitability of those right now versus the other models or the corporate average as you see it?

...

Elon Reeve Musk - Chairman, Product Architect and CEO

Yes, so I was going to say, because people are optioning up the 60 kilowatt-hour, it actually ends up being decent. Maybe it's sort of like 15% to 20% gross margin where I say something like if somebody orders a Performance Dual Motor that might actually be more like a 30%, 35% gross margin. But there's just a small number of people that want high-performance cars and are willing to pay triple digits – six digits I should say. But it also remains to be seen how many who order the 60 kilowatt-hour then choose to do the upgrade to the 75 kilowatt-hour rate. So there's going be some number, but it's too early to tell, of people who buy the 60 kilowatt-hour, realize they want the extra range and then they can just order it kind of like an in-app purchase on the car screen and unlock it.

I suspect we'll see pretty decent number of people do that. But it's still very early, so it's hard to say what number that would be. And if they do do that, then it would push the gross margins up into the 20%s, like in the mid-20%s or so.


John J. Murphy - Bank of America Merrill Lynch

That's helpful. And then just, Jason, maybe two quick housekeeping questions. CapEx at $2.25 billion, you're running at a run rate that's less than half after the first half of the year. So just curious how realistic that number is for the full year because you guys have committed to it in the Shareholder Letter again. Then also the auto gross margin going up 200 basis points to 300 basis points off of what base? It's not clear what base that's coming off of. Just trying to understand the exit gross margin for the year you're expecting.

Jason S. Wheeler - Chief Financial Officer

Yes, sure. No problem. So I'm going to add just a little bit of color onto the 60 kilowatt-hour gross margin numbers, too. We're aspirational on this. But the way to think about this is very important. Those cars are gross margin positive and they're producing cash. So if you think about from an overall operating leverage perspective, even if the gross margin profile on those is less than our other variants, it's still producing contribution margin to pay for the fixed cost of the business. So I think it's the right economic thing to do. And even more importantly, it's right for the customer to continue to broaden the market that way.
 
Last edited: