TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

Battery package /size conjecture

Discussion in 'Model 3: Battery & Charging' started by insaneoctane, Jun 13, 2017.

Tags:
  1. insaneoctane

    insaneoctane Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Southern California
    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".
     
    • Disagree x 4
  2. insaneoctane

    insaneoctane Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Southern California
    Hmm. Would have thought I would have gotten 1 comment by now!
     
  3. Booga

    Booga Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    424
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  4. dsvick

    dsvick Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,488
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    I don't think there will be that many options. They're trying to keep things simple. I think we're looking at a 60kWh and a 75kWh. No software locking, no downgrading, no mislabeling.
     
    • Like x 2
  5. Booga

    Booga Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    424
    Location:
    Ohio
    PS: OP - I think your image comes from the photographer, Easton Chang. Not sure if you knew the origin, but it should be from an Integra Type R :)
     
  6. insaneoctane

    insaneoctane Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Southern California
    No "55kWh" in 2017.
     
  7. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,369
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    There's been no official announcement on the subject.
     
  8. Uncle Paul

    Uncle Paul Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    767
    Location:
    Canyon Lake,CA
    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.
     
  9. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,369
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Why do you keep saying 80 when you know that according to Elon there can be no 80 kWh version in the near future?
     
  10. insaneoctane

    insaneoctane Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Southern California
    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!
     
  11. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,369
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    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.
     
  12. WileyTheMan

    WileyTheMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    434
    Location:
    Los Gatos, CA
    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.
     
    • Like x 1
  13. insaneoctane

    insaneoctane Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Southern California
    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.

    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.
     
  14. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,369
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    No, the 100D gets 335 miles. No problem there.
     
  15. dsvick

    dsvick Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,488
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    That is the only statement you made that I agree with :D

    I think there will be 60 and 75 kWh batteries, no software locking or any other silliness.
     
    • Like x 1
  16. jsrawa

    jsrawa Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    377
    Location:
    Saint Louis
    I think it's clear we will have 60kWh and 75kWh. I would say 55kWh but I think to really beat the Bolt we will see 60 and he has tweeted that 75 is the max size they can fit with current density,
     
  17. vigge50

    vigge50 Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    506
    Location:
    Sverige
    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.
     
  18. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,369
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Make no mistake, the price of the 75 kWh battery was always included in base price of the car. The upgrade was pure profit.
     
  19. Booga

    Booga Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    424
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  20. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,369
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20 JeffK, Jun 16, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
    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:

     
    • Informative x 2

Share This Page