-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
THIS
His example was 200 miles driving down the highway in 10 degree F weather. The EPA number he threw out was 240, as you say. I imagine Elon's worst fear is someone who has never driven an EV trying to go 200 miles without planning and getting stranded at the side of the interstate. With another (toy/city/niche) electric car, those familiar with BEVs would say things like, "you you should have slowed down," or "winter range is reduced, so plan accordingly." To the unfamiliar, all they would see is a failure and an excuse for a weakness not found in more "reliable" ICE vehicles. This is meant to be the car that gets someone for whom BEVs are off the radar to go electric. At < $100 kWh by 2020, as per Elon, amazing things are bound to happen.
Earlier in the thread, 55 kWh @ $11K was offered as a possible battery pack cost.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a high-20s Model 3 base vehicle with a battery lease or rental. If you call this the "base model" and the leasing plan was "as economical as gas" (including electricity costs) then Tesla would be "overpromising" by delivering a sub $30k vehicle. As usual, the market would probably react with "wtf" and the stock would look serpentine for months.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a high-20s Model 3 base vehicle with a battery lease or rental. If you call this the "base model" and the leasing plan was "as economical as gas" (including electricity costs) then Tesla would be "overpromising" by delivering a sub $30k vehicle. As usual, the market would probably react with "wtf" and the stock would look serpentine for months.
I imagine that the reduction in size and gigafactory production will help keep battery costs low. Wouldn't need as large of a battery to power a Model 3 (especially if they drop its power)
Perhaps another reason they pulled the 60kwh Model S was to hold onto the batteries to use in Model 3?
If you think about it this way, they could potentially work with:
Model 3 - 50kwh
Model 3 - 60kwh
Model S - 70kwh
Model S - 85kwh
Model X - 85kwh
Model X - 95kwh
(I'm really hoping there's a Model 3 60d or p60d option!)
Unless more than 2/3 of S and X are 95 kWh, Tesla can prodyuce EVERY model 3 with at least a 60 kWh pack with 1 gWh to spare. They put in the Gigafactory pdf that they will have 35 gWh going into 500k vehicles in 2020. The math is really easy. Even if every S and X had a 95 kWh pack, they can put 59.25 kWh packs in every model 3. They said no packs larger than 85 kWh for the s and X for a few years. That would mean that every model 3 could have a 63.5 kWh battery if every single model s and X is an 85.
Long story short. Model 3 has an average battery capacity of 60 kWh and if they go smaller, they'll have packs they don't have cars for.
I am not a battery expert, but wouldn't itbe true that they could use cheaper cells that do not need to cope with the high discharge rate demanded by the Model S warp engines?
- - - Updated - - -
So my 15 minute googleing into the topic tells me, that according to an MIT research paper, producing a body in white out of steel is about 50% less expensive than aluminium. They ran some numbers on cars with full alu bodies, vs some parts (doors, hood, trunk) made of alu vs all steel.
While that would surely have some weight consequences, there is a cost factor to consider there.
How current is that research paper? I would expect the cost differential to be less than it once was, given the F150 now has an aluminum body. It doesn't get much more mass market than that.
First, it will be "a few years" until the GF is in production and the Model 3 is out. So it makes it very possible that it will be the time for an upgrade of the battery packs for Model S/X. And I see you have taken that into account in your calculations. But most people seems to think that if it was upgraded today it would be a 95kWh or 100kWh pack. In 2017 it will probably be bigger: 110-115kWh? And what size will then the "small"-battery version have? And how many battery-sizes will the Model 3 be delivered with?
Although I appreciate what you're here trying to figure out, and hope really you're right, but I think we just have to realize that we know too little to be able to arrive at any meaningful result. The one thing I think I can extract from your calculation is that the calculated average battery-size of the Model 3 seems to be in the 50-60kWh range. Which seems likely.
Lower discharge rate batteries are not cheaper but have less capacity.
Tesla uses highest capacity available and then optimize for durability. Whatever maximum power 'falls out' of that procedure, they run with it.
High power is not a design constraint, high capacity is. High power is then a simple corollary.
Remember, twice the capacity equals twice the power. It is that simple.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
My heartfelt praise and appreciation goes out to those of you who have wisely beaten back the tide of doomsaying presented by the Myopic League of Lowered Expectations. Unfortunately, I can't give +1 to everyone on every post I agree with... Strange that the forum software limits that action.
;-)
;-)
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
I believe Supercharger access will be standard on all Tesla Motors vehicles going forward, including all trim levels of Model ≡. Built-in. Included. No additional charge. Prepaid. Free.
Improvements in margin wrought from Gigafactory supplies will cover Supercharger expenses.
The traditional automobile manufacturers claim a 6% overall margin for the industry as a whole. Even if Tesla Motors were to 'only' achieve a 14% margin, half the current 28% amount, that is still more than twice the average for the industry.
And by the way, Lexus admits to a 14% margin, which is no doubt aided by using rebadged Toyota products such as the Avalon and Sequoia, offered for sale at higher price points...
Besides, without middlemen in the form of 'independent franchised dealerships' muscling in for a share of the profits, another 2%-5% is gained in Tesla Motors favor.
Thus, on a car with a $34,900 base price, a 14% margin would mean a $30,014 build cost. If the battery pack were 25% of that internal cost (which works out to slightly over $125 per kWh for a 60 kWh battery pack), and its expense was reduced by 7% per year... Then Tesla Motors would indeed have funds on hand to cover Supercharger expenses for a very long time.
$7,503.50
$7,278.40
$6,768.91
$6,565.84
$6,368.86
$5,923.04
See? Conservatively speaking, internal costs for the battery pack would go down by nearly $1,600 within five years. Thus, more in the coffers to handle Supercharging.
Improvements in margin wrought from Gigafactory supplies will cover Supercharger expenses.
The traditional automobile manufacturers claim a 6% overall margin for the industry as a whole. Even if Tesla Motors were to 'only' achieve a 14% margin, half the current 28% amount, that is still more than twice the average for the industry.
And by the way, Lexus admits to a 14% margin, which is no doubt aided by using rebadged Toyota products such as the Avalon and Sequoia, offered for sale at higher price points...
Besides, without middlemen in the form of 'independent franchised dealerships' muscling in for a share of the profits, another 2%-5% is gained in Tesla Motors favor.
Thus, on a car with a $34,900 base price, a 14% margin would mean a $30,014 build cost. If the battery pack were 25% of that internal cost (which works out to slightly over $125 per kWh for a 60 kWh battery pack), and its expense was reduced by 7% per year... Then Tesla Motors would indeed have funds on hand to cover Supercharger expenses for a very long time.
$7,503.50
$7,278.40
$6,768.91
$6,565.84
$6,368.86
$5,923.04
See? Conservatively speaking, internal costs for the battery pack would go down by nearly $1,600 within five years. Thus, more in the coffers to handle Supercharging.
MartinAustin
Active Member
(Tried to find my old calculations on this subject, can’t find the post, so here they are again, approximately anyway.)
Since the base Model S is now selling for the round number of $75,000, they have dropped the "$NN,900" pricing language that was in use before. Let’s assume the stripper version of the Model 3 is exactly $35,000 - plus delivery and taxes. I suspect another reason for "$35,000" will be the kind of straight-shootin' truthfulness that Elon likes. The rest of the car business likes to price cars with "$NN,999" when possible. Elon will want to break from that.
If this basic Model 3 makes 15% profit right out of the gate (which is another assumption as it might begin with a slimmer margin), it would cost Tesla $30,434. (30434*1.15 = 35000)
An important factor to consider is the Model 3’s efficiency. The only spec Elon has mentioned so far is the car’s range – 200 miles. He has recently started talking about 240 miles, and I’m assuming that will be the range of the Model 3. The large & heavy Model S can be conservatively driven at 250Wh/mile. If a car that is significantly smaller and lighter can be driven normally at that power level, it would be travelling 4 miles per KWh and therefore require 60KWh of energy to travel 240 miles. Add 5KWh for buffer and you’ve got a battery of 65KWh. However, since the Model 3 is 80% of the physical size of the Model S, with reduced weight and aerodynamic drag, and it has narrower tyres, plus the latest generation of power electronics, can it drive at 200Wh/mile? That is surely a goal for Tesla Motors. The car would reach 5 miles for every available KWh in the battery. To travel 240 miles you’d need 48KWh, and adding 5KWh for buffer you have 53KWh. I’m going to assume this is the base level battery capacity. I have seen $180/KWh mentioned on this forum by those very knowledgeable on the subject of how much the Model 3 batteries are going to cost, and I’m going to use that as the cost of the batteries. 53*180 = $9,540.
This means the cost of the rest of the car, plus the empty battery pack, is 30434-9540 or $20,894.
This $20,894 would have to produce a car the size of BMW 3-series / Infiniti G37 / Audi A4 / Mercedes C Class. No supercharger access, one motor only, cloth seats, coil suspension and only black or white paint. What it would have as standard would be environmental sustainability, fully-silent operation, lots of interior room, the world-beating touchscreen and software capabilities, and 240-mile range for only 53KWh of electricity (which costs me about six bucks at my house). Still pretty compelling.
I think this is achievable and would generate at least $4,566 profit per car - even on the stripper. Naturally the options of metallic paint, air suspension, autopilot, leather, alloys, performance invertor, larger batteries and so on would be fantastic profit centers.
Since the base Model S is now selling for the round number of $75,000, they have dropped the "$NN,900" pricing language that was in use before. Let’s assume the stripper version of the Model 3 is exactly $35,000 - plus delivery and taxes. I suspect another reason for "$35,000" will be the kind of straight-shootin' truthfulness that Elon likes. The rest of the car business likes to price cars with "$NN,999" when possible. Elon will want to break from that.
If this basic Model 3 makes 15% profit right out of the gate (which is another assumption as it might begin with a slimmer margin), it would cost Tesla $30,434. (30434*1.15 = 35000)
An important factor to consider is the Model 3’s efficiency. The only spec Elon has mentioned so far is the car’s range – 200 miles. He has recently started talking about 240 miles, and I’m assuming that will be the range of the Model 3. The large & heavy Model S can be conservatively driven at 250Wh/mile. If a car that is significantly smaller and lighter can be driven normally at that power level, it would be travelling 4 miles per KWh and therefore require 60KWh of energy to travel 240 miles. Add 5KWh for buffer and you’ve got a battery of 65KWh. However, since the Model 3 is 80% of the physical size of the Model S, with reduced weight and aerodynamic drag, and it has narrower tyres, plus the latest generation of power electronics, can it drive at 200Wh/mile? That is surely a goal for Tesla Motors. The car would reach 5 miles for every available KWh in the battery. To travel 240 miles you’d need 48KWh, and adding 5KWh for buffer you have 53KWh. I’m going to assume this is the base level battery capacity. I have seen $180/KWh mentioned on this forum by those very knowledgeable on the subject of how much the Model 3 batteries are going to cost, and I’m going to use that as the cost of the batteries. 53*180 = $9,540.
This means the cost of the rest of the car, plus the empty battery pack, is 30434-9540 or $20,894.
This $20,894 would have to produce a car the size of BMW 3-series / Infiniti G37 / Audi A4 / Mercedes C Class. No supercharger access, one motor only, cloth seats, coil suspension and only black or white paint. What it would have as standard would be environmental sustainability, fully-silent operation, lots of interior room, the world-beating touchscreen and software capabilities, and 240-mile range for only 53KWh of electricity (which costs me about six bucks at my house). Still pretty compelling.
I think this is achievable and would generate at least $4,566 profit per car - even on the stripper. Naturally the options of metallic paint, air suspension, autopilot, leather, alloys, performance invertor, larger batteries and so on would be fantastic profit centers.
That the number I have seen also. But, remember that this is the price today - or at least last year. And they expect at least 30% of that price when they get cells from the GF, and Model 3 will get cells from the GF. That will be $126/KWh, or $6,678 for 53KWh. Or $6,930 for 55KWh that I think is more likely. Even 60KWh will be "only" $7,560...
Edit: fixed typos...
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
MartinAustin: Very well done, but please note that Tesla Motors' cost on battery cells will be reduced by 30% due to the Gigafactory from the outset. That changes the calculations somewhat, allowing for as little as $126/kWh, and thus $7,560 for the battery pack. That nearly $2,000 difference as compared to your calculations allows Supercharger access to be included.
Also, the base version of the BMW 3-Series is no better appointed than a Toyota Camry LE, which has a base price of ~$22,000. Surely a lean company such Tesla Motors can be at least as efficient as BMW and match their economies of scale. I'm betting Tesla will exceed them. So no, there will not be a 'beater' or 'loss leader' or empty, tin-can, substandard, stripped version of the Model ≡ at all.
Do not be surprised if (when) dual motor AWD is standard and the car is outfitted quite nicely in base trim. Yes, you will be able to add another $15,000 in creature comforts and convenience features as options upon request... But none of those will be absolute necessities, so no one who brings up the base model, chooses a tan interior with red paint, then clicks 'ORDER' will be disappointed at all.
Also, the base version of the BMW 3-Series is no better appointed than a Toyota Camry LE, which has a base price of ~$22,000. Surely a lean company such Tesla Motors can be at least as efficient as BMW and match their economies of scale. I'm betting Tesla will exceed them. So no, there will not be a 'beater' or 'loss leader' or empty, tin-can, substandard, stripped version of the Model ≡ at all.
Do not be surprised if (when) dual motor AWD is standard and the car is outfitted quite nicely in base trim. Yes, you will be able to add another $15,000 in creature comforts and convenience features as options upon request... But none of those will be absolute necessities, so no one who brings up the base model, chooses a tan interior with red paint, then clicks 'ORDER' will be disappointed at all.
Come on, this isn't going to be a car somebody picks up at the corner store on the way home. They may decide to include supercharger access in the base car, but if they don't customers will be well informed.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Lots of information was available to those who purchased Model S 40 and Model S 60, yet far too many reported they 'felt cheated' or that they were 'misled' when they didn't have Supercharger access.
Mr. Miyagi say, "Best block: No be there."
It is best that Tesla Motors make things as simple as possible. No optional Supercharging. No annual, quarterly, or monthly subscriptions. No card swiping or 'pay at the pump'. Just, simply, included with the purchase of the car. Period.
Mr. Miyagi say, "Best block: No be there."
It is best that Tesla Motors make things as simple as possible. No optional Supercharging. No annual, quarterly, or monthly subscriptions. No card swiping or 'pay at the pump'. Just, simply, included with the purchase of the car. Period.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I agree. A lot of people don't need supercharging so why include it in the price of every car when you can offer cars without it for less money. It's not like supercharging is actually free. Tesla pays for each charge and if you don't need it, why pay for it. I also think a lot of people will buy it as a second car to an ICE and will never do road trips with it.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Canuck: I have heard that argument before and I disagree.
Tesla Motors is not in this to make someone's 'second car'. They have stated from the outset, and often been blown off or ignored, that their goal is to prove that electric vehicles do not have to be saddled with the perceived limitations that traditional automobile manufacturers have presented for decades.
They don't have to be:
• Short range
• Expensive to buy
• Inconvenient to operate
• Limited to commuter duty
• Slow and boring
• Have faulty, short lived batteries
• Slow to charge
• Ugly as [SNOT]
Tesla Motors wants to prove that an electric vehicle can be your only form of personal transportation.
True, enough... After buying a Tesla Model S, many have realized they needed a second car... So they ordered another Tesla.
Tesla Motors is not in this to make someone's 'second car'. They have stated from the outset, and often been blown off or ignored, that their goal is to prove that electric vehicles do not have to be saddled with the perceived limitations that traditional automobile manufacturers have presented for decades.
They don't have to be:
• Short range
• Expensive to buy
• Inconvenient to operate
• Limited to commuter duty
• Slow and boring
• Have faulty, short lived batteries
• Slow to charge
• Ugly as [SNOT]
Tesla Motors wants to prove that an electric vehicle can be your only form of personal transportation.
True, enough... After buying a Tesla Model S, many have realized they needed a second car... So they ordered another Tesla.
Similar threads
