Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model 3' started by Nuclear Fusion, Aug 8, 2017.
Tesla Model 3 battery packs have capacities of ~50 kWh and ~75 kWh, says Elon Musk
If that is true then, assuming the usable is 48 kWh and 72 kWh, we get an efficiency of 218 wh/mile and 232 wh/mile for the short range (220 miles) and the long range (310 miles).
Those efficiencies seem like a stretch to me, especially for the shorter range M3. Possible perhaps only under very ideal conditions, but in real world the range might be far less? This could be precursor for disappointment for a lot of folks who might struggle to get the rated range in M3 in long distance driving on a highway, unlike in an S it is super easy to get the rated range or even more on most days above 70F cruising at 70 mph. And remember getting the stated range on a highway driving on a long distance trip is more important than getting it on an EPA's mixed driving mode.
Thought this was interesting:
During the call, Musk also expressed concerns over battery cell supply potentially creating a bottleneck for Model 3 production and even suggested that Tesla could push customers toward the smaller battery pack option, which require significantly fewer cells.
my guess is he's quoting the usable at 50/75, if you recall the epa docs had the LR at ~79 or ~80
That would mean 227 & 241 wh/mile. Not sure that is achievable under normal driving conditions. That is more than 4 miles / kWh. To me that seems like a stretch.
Having driven Leafs for over 60k miles, I am super skeptical of manufacturers overstating their range.
The idea could be to let people charge to 100% which would be 75KWh usable and leave more of a buffer then the typical anti bricking for a reserve and to prolong the battery life. So splitting the ~5KWh extra into a reserve and a sort of software lock to keep the batteries from ever being charged to 100%.
Push? Just make it available as soon as people can start configuration. They started with the bigger battery to improve margins, but if they cannot get them delivered, then it wont help margins at all because the revenue realized on undelivered cars is 0.
The Leaf is a brick but I do not have an issue getting rated range in our Leaf. Typically the EPA tests do not factor aero in as much as it should be so that better than average aero cars do better than EPA. So your Leaf is worse than average which might explain your results. Of course, if you have 60k on a Leaf, you obviously understand how much aero is an issue.
Who cares what Elon Musks says anyway!
$9k for 25kwh is a great deal; makes the 100 feel like a total rip off given the price difference between the 75 and 100.
But the S and the 3 are totally different cars!!! In the S you're able to enjoy Autopilot with a dedicated steering wheel stalk (number three out of four stalks), while on the 3 you have to use the bloody RNPD stalk. (Wtf!!) Furthermore, on the S you have the pleasure of using a key FOB while 3 uses a puny credit card thingie! To top it all off, S has actual door handles while 3 has some weird frigging BUTTON you have to press all the way down until the opening mechanism engages.
I can't believe you're comparing the two. Weird. Just weird
The lifetime average in our LEAF is 5.3 miles per kWh. This makes some sense because it is used as a local commuter and rarely used on the highway.
When we consider when the Leaf was designed and the technology that supported to we should realize that the Model 3 efficiencies are not really so high as to be implausible.
The we also consider the disclosures to date regarding the 2018 leaf we see similar advances expected to those of the Model 3.
We might as well be blunt; the long-expected benefits of a decade of R&D are now arriving. We'll be astonished when we see all that will arrive in 2019/2020.
I've been wondering for a while if Elon's promise to supply Australia with a large battery storage solution within 90 days or supply it for free would affect other supply plans from the Gigafactory. This warning of battery shortages in the near term for the Model 3 might be a result.
They created a bottleneck then by only producing the larger range battery first and according to delivery estimates even when they are producing both they make you wait an extra 2-3 months if you want the standard battery. They should just allow customers to choose what they want when their number comes up, that would help to alleviate some bottlenecking.
I rated this 'like' even though I hope it is not true because I suspect that it is true. All things considered it was probably a good move for Tesla, but with possible short term cost.
I was just mentioning to my wife one of the realities of businesses, that they promote sales to a large degree isolated from the product reality. At first blush it seems foolish to offer for sale what you do not have, but it is hard to do worse than not having clients. At least with a contract you have a chance of meeting terms.
Elon has a hard job.
The GF is already producing more batteries than any other factory out there. On that kind of volume 100MWh for Australia is nothing (represents only about 1500 long range Model 3).
Regarding Tesla's battery supply contract to Australia -- please check my arithmetic:
120 MWh supply contract
60 kWh Model 3 battery
~ 2,000 cars worth.
Edit: Thanks, @schonelucht
We could just buy the car "batteries not included." It will work just like the full-self-driving option.