While I'm still reading through this awesome thead, it'd like to mention that a 55kWh car that get a 215 mile EPA rating would be very impressive. I'd be content to hear 60kWh. But especially if 55kWh suffices, I cannot imagine it being software limited a phsical 70-75kWh. At the super low price point, can Tesla afford making so many high-end cells that are in super high demand for all their other products, or the rest of the market, and then not charge money for it?
The argument for a larger battery pack that is limited to a lower amount is as follows. An actual 55 kWh battery
pack would be further software limited to a lower amount, perhaps 90% of that amount, to allow for an anti-bricking reserve space. Thus, you would only have 49.5 kWh or so to use to reach a 215 mile range. So, roughly 230 Wh per mile on average. But the EPA calculates your
'real world' range based upon the amount of electricity used to charge the car, including induction losses, not the amount of energy in the battery. Even if the car actually averaged 230 Wh per mile while in motion, they would treat it as if it used perhaps 270 Wh per mile instead. And the car would be rated at a much lower 183 mile range. Using a 75 kWh battery pack, limited to 55 kWh, you get to use the entire 55 kWh amount
(and have a 20 kWh reserve), and when you calculate at the higher than actual 270 Wh per mile consumption average, you at least get to 204 miles rated range. That meets the 200 mile baseline minimum for Tesla Generation III, even if it didn't get quite 215 miles.
As for the battery cells that would be
'given away for free'. I don't believe they would be. I expect that Tesla Motors' internal cost for battery cells supplied through the Gigafactory will be much, much lower than most believe possible. There may well be an extremely slim profit margin, even for the base vehicle with no options, enough to make it worthwhile to
'give away' capacity that is left unused. Tesla Motors is likely gambling that far more people will upgrade to the higher capacity either prior to purchase or at some point during their ownership experience. I believe that gamble will pay off, if only because some people will want to have the highest capacity they can manage with rear wheel drive. That is, some people won't want to pay the amount for higher capacity combined with dual motor all wheel drive, but will find it a bargain of sorts to upgrade the base rear wheel drive motor to include an unlocked battery pack. There will be no losing version of the car for Tesla Motors at all, just much more profitable varieties, that happen to be that much more expensive.
Many Model 3's will be second cars, never leaving the owner's city or county. Those owners will just drag the extra batteries around. And Tesla supplied them for free. In Model S and X it's an interesting gamble and article number reduction. In Model 3, can it afford giving away 500 or however many 2070 cells?
I think that for many people, the Model ☰ will be their first, and only car. That is the appeal of the vehicle – it will be an electric car they can afford – without having a second car in the driveway. That was the paradigm offered by traditional automobile manufacturers – the ability to drive on electricity
'around town' and then have another
'real' car (that burns gasoline) on the road. One of the best arguments in favor of the Chevrolet VOLT was similar to that one. You could own one car that was
'the best of both worlds' (worst of both worlds, IMHO), instead of two vehicles. Sure, some may well intend for Model ☰ to be their
'second car', but they'll soon realize it was their former car that is now the backup. Until they realize they haven't driven it in six months or more. The sooner people realize such things, the more they'll be able to get for their old ICE upon being sold.
I do hope Tesla saw the change to make the Model 3 pack a decent volume. So it can match the Model S/X for range when using equal cell technology. Since Model S/X will soon hit 100kWh on updated 18650's, By the Model 3's cells are also put towards S/X, they're at 110kWh. A full year on though, 5% more gains are to be expected. I would not be surprised at all to see a 120kWh Model S for sale 365 days after today, as Model 3 starts rolling of the assembly line forst for non-employees. What would the Model 3 have as a max then? 100kWh seems a reasonable maximum mid-2017. At today's tech, that would "just" be 80kWh.
At the same given capacity the Model ☰ will have a greater range than the Tesla Model S. Do not be surprised if a version of Model ☰ exists from day one that has greater range than anything currently offered for Model S. That is,
'currently', indeed Tesla Motors could certainly release higher capacity versions of Model S that have even greater range around the time that Model ☰ is released. But make no mistake – there is no need to
'protect' sales of Model S – it will do just fine in the market, continuing to demolish sales of its direct competitors for years to come.
Reason I hope Tesla will take the opportunity to make long range 3's is because it would shock the world. While we are tlaking about 300 mile range, it could actually be 400 miles. And all it takes is Tesla thinking to make the battery casing as big as possible rather than as small as possible. A lot of it would be air for the expected 55/60kWh entry level version. But surely a pack merely just as big externally as on the S would be fit in a 3 with years off enhanced insights in EV design? Just making the pack slightly thicker could do the trick. 1-2cm thicker at the cost of head room in the cabin. Clawed back with the glass roof.
A 120kWh Model 3. Combining current Models S/X volume, announced 100kWh capacity with 18650's, the at least 10% density improvement for 2170 cells, possible other density gains from packaging/cooling, not even counting one more year of the JB mentioned 7% power density increase >>>>> at 15% lower consumption than a S70D, 110kWh would get:
110/70 * 1.15 * 240 = 433 miles.
And I honestly think this is all doable. All it takes it the 3 to get the same pack shell volume as S and X.
A single motor Model 3 with stuffed pack would be a good bit lighter than S70D. The 70 after all uses 75/90=83% of the available battery space. Model 3 being lighter also causes less heating, thus less need for a D. Saving more weight on the second motor.
Furthermore, the pack would be less metal, more acid.
With the claimed/rumored lower drag and frontal area, newly developed circuitry and motors, surely 15% lower (many expect 20%) than a very large sedan is not unreasonable. The 110kWh is what no-one will deny Model S/X will do when the 2170 cells find their way to them, at today's consumption rates.
Just imagine that, Model 3 being a 60kWh (54 effective) 215 miles (as already claimed) base car, and a 110kWh (104 effective) range monster doing, well, roughly double that. A bigger pack is stressed less, less heat build-up? More regen capability?
Who's going to diss EV's or the brand when Tesla offers a $50k 430-miler? Just after Mercedes, BMW, VW, etc, etc, proudly presented their 300 mile contenders expected to arrive in 2020?
The opportunity it too good to pass up.
By my napkin math a 135 kWh battery pack should be sufficient to get the Model ☰ to a 505-to-560 mile EPA rated range. That could be done within a volume that was lower than that of the Generation II battery packs. JB Straubel has already noted that he expects about a 40% improvement in energy density between Generation II and Generation III vehicles.
And yeah, if the lab guys and gals have a good year, by the time Model 3 hits first customers, let alone showrooms for non-reservers, with an S/X sized pack, it could "pack" 115-120kWh.
Hello $50-55k 450+ mile EV!
The Gigafactory will probably begin building the battery packs for the Model ☰ much sooner than that. I expect that they will need several thousand battery packs on hand well before they begin building cars. They will probably start off at a rate of around 4,000 vehicles per week. Then ramp up as quickly as possible to 8,000 per week. So, it would be very good to have perhaps three months' worth of battery packs on hand, with available capacities in the proportion of expected distribution. How quickly battery packs can be produced at Sparks and delivered to Fremont may well determine how fast the cars can be built. I think that perhaps only 20% to 30% of cars will have the highest capacity battery pack, if that is only paired with the Performance trim as I hope.
