Gen III Range & Pricing Speculation

[stopcrazypp]

I would hope by the time Gen III is out SAE DC would have made serious in-roads, so it should not matter even if Gen III doesn't have Supercharger usage. As I said, I don't think Gen III will sell well if it doesn't have DC charging (applies even to the base model). I don't think there is any serious EV (I'm looking at the i3) on the horizon for the US market without QC as standard.

I plan to get a Gen III but I would seriously reconsider if it doesn't have QC of any form.

 

[JRod0802]

Cause the car that has less range can't make it? The 40kWh was not SC compatible.

I suspect 2-3 years from now we won't be talking about 120-200 mi. between SCs but something more like 80 mi.

I agree.

Cause the car that sells 100,000 per year will clog the system made for the luxury cars?

I don't know about you guys, but I honestly imagine that at busy supercharger locations in 15 years, there will be 40-50 superchargers present. Considering it's a proprietary connector, what percentage of cars parked at a rest stop will be Teslas? 30%? How many total cars are present at a rest stop during a busy time? 150?

 

[PopSmith]

I don't know about you guys, but I honestly imagine that at busy supercharger locations in 15 years, there will be 40-50 superchargers present. Considering it's a proprietary connector, what percentage of cars parked at a rest stop will be Teslas? 30%? How many total cars are present at a rest stop during a busy time? 150?

Charge times at Superchargers may be drastically reduced by the time BlueStar is released (or a couple years after). As an example, Tesla may find a way to bump the charging up to 140kW (~55% increase) with no decrease in battery life. An advancement like that may result in Tesla deciding to give BlueStar Supercharger access.

I agree with brianman in that Tesla may space the Superchargers closer to 75-100 miles apart in the future. Tesla may even choose to put stations closer to 50 miles apart at the highest-travelled locations so that the wait times are little-to-none.

 

[constraint]

I think it makes more sense for Tesla just to create the base infrastructure with the 150 mile range (maybe a few locations would be closer). Obviously this would not meet the demand for SC so Tesla sells their SC technology to 3rd parties that fill in the gaps (for cost).

Elon's goal is to make electric cars become the dominate force, and the best way to do that is sell the best technology to make that happen.

 

[aronth5]

JB discusses a wide range of topics at the 2013 Cleantech Summit. Interviewed by Ira Ehrenpreis, himself an early Model S owner, and a member of Tesla's Board of Directors. Click on the link below, and then select the video titled: "Tesla Motors: Revolutionizing the Automobile".

Videos and Presentations | Clean-Tech Investor Summit

FrankC

Excellent.
@28:35- Very interesting to hear JB state he expected "similar" battery improvement from the Roadster to the Model S to take place with Gen3- 40% less mass and cost. Good news.

Would certainly seem to indicate Gen3's range will be at least equal to the Model S.

 

[VolkerP]

From interview with Tesla CTO, JB Straubel (discussed here: Tesla Motors CTO talks future batteries and charging protocols) one number struck me: JB mentioned that batteries have improved from 2008 Roadster to 2012 Model S by 40%, and he projects a similar improvement for Gen III.

So I came up with a spread sheet, feeding in the only other fuzzy number we know about Gen III: it will be 25% smaller than Model S.

I arrived at 46kWh pack size for the entry model Gen III, giving a range of 200 miles (EPA), and a top level model Gen III with 70kWh pack and 273 miles of range.


I will list my steps below, perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in there.

The Roadster has a pack of ~900lbs or around 450kg, and hold 53kWh of energy. The pack energy density is 123Wh/kg.

Model S 85kWh pack is said to be around 485kg (1070lbs) which is a fair part of total curb weight 4647lbs. There are 7104 cells in the 85kWh pack weighing 330kg, so an overhead of 50% for pack structure and cooling seems OK. This gives an energy density of 175Wh/kg, an improvement of 34% over the Roadster. They managed to stay close to the 40% improvement at cell level - an incredible feat!
Model S efficiency I calculate by 85kWh/265 miles (EPA) = 321Wh/mi.

For Model S 60kWh pack I arrive at 363kg (800lbs) pack weight and an energy density of 165Wh/kg. The 85kWh pack is more densely packed. But I will use this number for the pack density of an entry level model. Efficiency is 288 Wh/mi.

Model S without a pack weighs 1624kg, then.

My assumptions going from Model S-60 to GenIII are as follows:

1. Tesla will improve pack energy density by another 30%, arriving at 215Wh/kg
2. a minimum range of 200 miles (EPA) is targeted for the entry model.
3. the net vehicle mass (excluding the pack) is reduced by 85%. A 25% size reduction means less metal in body panels, chassis, and other parts scaling with car dimensions. Other parts e.g. seats don't scale, however.
4. reduction of frontal area by 10% and reduction of rolling resistance of lighter vehicle decrease energy consumption by 20%. The Gen III efficiency hence is 231Wh/mi.

From that follows a pack capacity of 46kWh, pack weight of 215kg (473lbs) and total vehicle weight of 1595kg (3514lbs).

Next step would be a top level Model S with similar improvement in pack energy density due to denser packaging (227Wh/kg). Efficiency would take a similar hit like Model S 60 to 85 kWh, I calculate 257Wh/mi. Finally I chose a pack capacity of 70kWh, and arrive at 273 miles of range (EPA) and a total vehicle weight of 1688kg (3719 lbs).

That is a slick car!

 

[JRP3]

Some notes. You have a typo where both the 85 and 60 packs are listed at 1070lbs. Stopcrazy calculated about 150Wh/kg Model S pack density which matched my estimate. I like yours better but don't know if it's correct. 40% cell level improvement does not exist between the 2.4Ah and 3.1Ah cells but does between the 2.2Ah and 3.1Ah cells, so he may be calculating between early Roadster prototypes which may have used the 2.2Ah cells. Though there are 3.4Ah cells available today which would be 40% better than the 2.4Ah cells.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

[*]Tesla will improve pack energy density by another 30%, arriving at 215Wh/kg
[*]a minimum range of 200 miles (EPA) is targeted for the entry model.
[*]the net vehicle mass (excluding the pack) is reduced by 85%. A 25% size reduction means less metal in body panels, chassis, and other parts scaling with car dimensions. Other parts e.g. seats don't scale, however.
[*]reduction of frontal area by 10% and reduction of rolling resistance of lighter vehicle decrease energy consumption by 20%. The Gen III efficiency hence is 231Wh/mi.
[/LIST]

I think you're way off base on the 200 mile range. I'd expect they'd go for the 40kWh again. It made far less sense for the Model S, given the price point, but a $30k BEV compact can sell with 40kWh and sell well.

 

[Grendal]

I think you're way off base on the 200 mile range. I'd expect they'd go for the 40kWh again. It made far less sense for the Model S, given the price point, but a $30k BEV compact can sell with 40kWh and sell well.

Volker, I'm with ItsNot. I think the 200 miles is going to be the same as Model S's 300 mile range that Tesla originally said. I'll be perfectly happy with a realistic 175 mile range with an extra hundred for a larger pack. That puts the Gen III in the same boat as the Model S and works very well with the Supercharger system as it was conceived.

 

[gjunky]

@grendal and @itsnot.. I really hope you are both wrong. The entry level gen3 should have enough range to easily move between supercharges and the top version should exceed the model S in range. This car will come 4 years after the model s and should have considerably better specs and I don't just mean energy density. I think it needs to show better range in km/miles.

@volkerp: I like your reasoning. I think the 40% improvement was probably between the early cells in the roadster and the cells from the 85KwH pack. The 60 and 85 packs should weigh the same as I believe they have the same number of cells. Their cell capacity is different. I believe the 40KwH pack had fewer cells.

I am personally really hoping for a gen3 top level model with 400 miles range.

 

[JRP3]

The 60 car weighs about 180lbs less than the 85. I believe they both use the same cells, just fewer in the 60.

 

[vfx]

Musk called a 140 range car "a hobbled horse".

 

[dsm363]

I'm hoping for 200 mile EPA rated range as a minimum. Anything less is hobbled I think. It still allows for short day trips with some planning.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Musk called a 140 range car "a hobbled horse".

I'm hoping for 200 mile EPA rated range as a minimum. Anything less is hobbled I think. It still allows for short day trips with some planning.

Given that the overwhelming majority of Model S were ordered with 60 and 85 kWh packs, I think that 200+ miles EPA is what most customers want. I expect G3/BlueStar to have an entry level range of 200 miles EPA.

 

[vfx]

A Roadster reviewer once commented that the 100 mile number is the relief to range concerns.

That is, drivers don't even care about range as long as there are three digits showing on the "miles to go" readout. Once it goes to two digits then they start watching.
A 200 mile range car means most drives will always have that 100 mile comfort buffer.

 

[JRP3]

Musk called a 140 range car "a hobbled horse".

True but he was also talking about the performance. I can see a 40kWh pack as a possibility for the low end car. The smaller, lighter G3 would get better range and have better performance than the 40 S and could probably get fairly close to 200 miles of range.

 

[vfx]

True but he was also talking about the performance. I can see a 40kWh pack as a possibility for the low end car. The smaller, lighter G3 would get better range and have better performance than the 40 S and could probably get fairly close to 200 miles of range.

He was talking more about range as it was specifically mentioned as not being enough for practical use. He never mentioned speed (but it was implied).

 

[JRP3]

I thought I heard him talking about performance in other interviews. As for practical range, there are about 50,000 LEAF owners who would love 140 miles of range.

 

[vfx]

I thought I heard him talking about performance in other interviews. As for practical range, there are about 50,000 LEAF owners who would love 140 miles of range.

And a bunch of 85 S owners who would hate it.

 

[JRP3]

And who are not the target market for the G3 base model.