How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?

[Cloxxki]

@ModelNforNerd
If the GF would churn out standardized packs for, say Smart, Suzikis cars and the like, that would indeed make EV's available to make.
Chevvy already shows that you don't need a huge Tesla size 300hp motor to get around town to not up traffic. A light car will be easy enough to develop if drivetrains are developed by Tesla and partners for them. I'm not sure Tesla would want tobe the builder of all those little motors, but someone will happily be taking those orders, and delivering quality.
Owners of small and cheap EV's, especially if there are a few million more EV's on the road, will increasingly be low income. No driveway, no private parking garage. No personal charger at home. They'll be more dependant on fast public charging. I suppose shopping malls and supermarkets could cater to that, they make a buck while customers charge their cars and are paying for it to boot. It doesn't cost the consumer time.

I expect there will be two battery packs, and three capacities offered for Model ☰.

55 kWh -- 215-to-230 mile range, software limited
75 kWh -- 275-to-295 mile range
100 kWh -- 320-to-360 mile range, Performance only.​

I hope you are right and the initial reports that the battery "look small" are wrong.
The Model ☰ P100DL would be quite a car. It might a have lacklustre interior (to some) but with a low total mass (lower than any Model S?) and decent tires, it would put all ICE cars to shame @$50-55k. Being lighter, it would also deal with track racing a bit better.
It would be a better deal than long offered for cars this class. If you skipped the standard 1.4L engine and opted for a 2.5V6 or something, you car price would double for double the power and if lucky the same range. Tesla offers more range and proportionately more power.

Giving away (1,000) 2170 cells (20kWh) still doesn't sit well with me. Sure, they will make sure to get their margin, but it doesn't make sense. Doesn't this make the base model more expensive than it could be, by having to overcharge the ones that do upgrade to get their cost back?
That said, a 75kWh ☰ without performance should still be one really quick car.

At the reveal, would the prototypes already have had prototype 2170 cell pack, or for availability, 18650 limiting range and power?

 

[Red Sage]

The author mention a lot the ICE-to-BEV disruption threshold (385 Wh/kg) which apparently is independant of a car's unique consumption needs. I think a 400+ mile Model 3 option, even when "charged" a high premium for, would totally disrupt the industry. The competition can surely build cars to match that, but due to their higher cost of production battery technology would never be able to do it in the Model 3 class. Likely not even in the Model S's luxury sedan market. It would need to be a limosine. Not so much to have space for the battery pack, but to have the batteries be a smaller share of the total car's cost.

I didn't bother to read the full article, even after endorsements, because I simply don't visit [SINKING ANCHOR] anymore. I'm certain that even if someone else could deliver a sub-$50,000 electric car with extreme range, their 'independent franchised dealerships' would still charge 'what the market can bear' for it. Remember, some of them were asking a $100,000 premium for of all things, the BMW i8. I have imagined a Tesla Model L, as a six-passenger pullman limousine with Falcon Wing Doors designed for dignitaries and heads-of-state, but it isn't absolutely necessary for them to build such a vehicle. I rather like that Tesla Motors is not a luxury car company, though.

I strongly feel that if Tesla made the Model 3 available with a shocking 400+ mile range, they could get enough unrefundable 5k -10k deposits from large customers as well as consumers, to warrant an accelerated GF2 build where the thing would be built from scratch. The deposits would make the funding a breeze. All it takes is an extra compelling product which others simple cannot deliver, unless they develop ttheir own GF meaning they'd accept being half a decade behind or more.

The second Gigafactory will be built in an accelerated fashion already by nature of it being necessary for a Tesla Pickup Truck. Keep in mind though, that Elon said it is likely that future Gigafactory locations would likely produce battery packs and vehicles as well at a single site.

If Model 3 is so vital to Tesla, why not make it the mercy blow to the ICE market? Why keep the pack unneccesarily small, even if they do manage <200Wh/mi @ EPA?

I am definitely of the belief that overkill is best. I suspect that Elon and JB want to move as many cars as possible. And that they want each of those cars to have 'enough' capacity to deliver 'enough' range. The bad habit people have learned from driving ICE vehicles is to always fill up again at '1/4 tank' remaining. So, if they had a 400 mile range, they'd be filling up with 100 miles in reserve, after driving 300 miles... Thus, they don't really need a 400 mile range, because a 325-to-340 mile range would do. And by the way...? Very few direct competitors to the Tesla Model ☰ have even a 400+ mile range even with ICE because they don't have particularly large fuel tanks and their fuel economy is not that great.

Model 3 with 60kWh will be a heck of a car, no doubt in my mind. And it would suffice for me. But will it destroy the ICE? I'm not sure.

I concur. I think it would do a good job of ruining sales for other cars in the class. But not much more than that.

 

[mhan00]

You guys are likely setting yourselves up for disappointment. I would be very surprised if the Model III had a top end battery as large as the top end S and X. The 100kwh battery will likely be for only the S and X next year, with the top end for the III topping out at a lower level. Even with the hoped for savings from the Gigafactory which have not been realized yet, batteries are expensive as hell.

 

[Red Sage]

That would flip the industry on its head....but even more so if Tesla either:

A: committed to an even lower-cost vehicle with that range (where we all thought they were going to go with Model Y, until Part Deux was published....)

OR

B: (and now way more likely, since Part Deux was announced), selling packs to other OEM's who WILL put the packs in more affordable (<= $30,000US) BEVs.

Until some guy was quoted as saying the base version of Model ☰ would be less than 60 kWh...? I sincerely hoped the $35,000 car would be launched with a 100 kWh capacity battery pack as the singular choice. That would be the rear wheel drive car. Then an offering of a dual motor all wheel drive 'D' variant, and a Performance version would be higher priced. I would have released a 60 kWh version about 18 months later for around $27,000. That would require their initial internal cost on the Gigafactory battery cells to be extremely low, under $75 per kWh. So, not likely at all.

 

[JeffK]

Giving away (1,000) 2170 cells (20kWh) still doesn't sit well with me. Sure, they will make sure to get their margin, but it doesn't make sense. Doesn't this make the base model more expensive than it could be, by having to overcharge the ones that do upgrade to get their cost back?

Margin are slimmer when they "give away" capacity, but they make it up in after purchase upgrade fees and they unlock it for the used car market allowing higher margins on the used cars. Over time this more than makes up for the "loss".

In reality for the Model S, the cost of battery manufacturing probably went down to a point where they can actually produce the higher capacity battery at the same cost of the lower capacity battery in the past. Instead of simply increasing the margins, they chose to use this as an opportunity to sell more cars. Margins might be slimmer but at the end of the day you're selling more of them and there's a good chance you'll get to see cash later as people are able to afford the upgrade or it becomes a CPO car.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Good remarks. @Yggdrasill
While there looks to be an amount of loose sand, I wish I could falsify any of it.

As Tesla prophesizes a significant average annual improvement of energy density, and I can only expec they meant for a given cell demension, there are bound to be advanced by now. The 85>90kWh upgrade which I've heard done little for actual range leaves some expected improvement untouched. In 2012 there was an 85kWh already. Where are the improvements if the 90 doesn't really convince yet?
The improved charging speed of the 90kWh of late, is that software only, or does it exclusively affect new cars?

I'd love to hear more insights on the physical Model 3 battery pack size. Could it really be as small as 2,560 * 21-70?

My estimate is 2880 for the base pack, but sure, it could be 2560.

2560 cells x 20 Wh/cell = 51.6 kWh. Say 48 kWh available, and 215 miles means the consumption would have to be less than 223 Wh/mile. That's low, but not *impossibly* low. The Ioniq Electric is expected to have an EPA consumption of around 270 Wh/mile. And that's with an aerodynamic coefficient of 0.24 instead of 0.21, and a larger frontal area.

 

[Cloxxki]

You guys are likely setting yourselves up for disappointment. I would be very surprised if the Model III had a top end battery as large as the top end S and X. The 100kwh battery will likely be for only the S and X next year, with the top end for the III topping out at a lower level. Even with the hoped for savings from the Gigafactory which have not been realized yet, batteries are expensive as hell.

Don't forget that the top end S/X are very likely already having 100kWh onboard, just not utilizing it for which-ever reason in which evver exact way. The adoption of the 2170 cells by S/X will instantly hike them to 100kWh and I honestly think 119kW.
Since consumers focus in a lot on the range, getting twice as much for a modest (couple dozen %) upgrade will seem like a great deal.

Margin are slimmer when they "give away" capacity, but they make it up in after purchase upgrade fees and they unlock it for the used car market allowing higher margins on the used cars. Over time this more than makes up for the "loss".

In reality for the Model S, the cost of battery manufacturing probably went down to a point where they can actually produce the higher capacity battery at the same cost of the lower capacity battery in the past. Instead of simply increasing the margins, they chose to use this as an opportunity to sell more cars. Margins might be slimmer but at the end of the day you're selling more of them and there's a good chance you'll get to see cash later as people are able to afford the upgrade or it becomes a CPO car.

I agree, but I guess I'm just not comfortable with business models where the price is so loosely or indirectly related to cost, only to utility. Feels like creative accounting.

 

[JeffK]

Feels like creative accounting.

It's still a 15% margin on the base model ranging to nearly 30% on a highly optioned model... what other auto manufacturers are getting those kinds of margins? Even 15% is nearly unheard of.

 

[Cloxxki]

It's still a 15% margin on the base model ranging to nearly 30% on a highly optioned model... what other auto manufacturers are getting those kinds of margins? Even 15% is nearly unheard of.

Indeed. But they need it support their rate of growth and be robust in a dire economic climate.

 

[Red Sage]

... If the GF would churn out standardized packs for, say Smart, Suzikis cars and the like, that would indeed make EV's available to make.

So many enthusiasts seem to still think Tesla Motors intends to be a battery supplier to traditional automobile manufacturers. That won't happen, because those companies will want to use Tesla's technology to run their hybrids and Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles. I strongly suspect that both Daimler and Toyota ended their relationships with Tesla Motors after being told firmly that sort of thing would not be allowed. Tesla will only let people use their hardware for fully electric battery powered vehicles, and they won't do anymore of that until the Model ☰ has been fully launched and achieved its sales goals. I think it more likely that after Tesla Motors has perfected their system for building a combined Battery Factory and Assembly Plant, they will offer their Gigafactory locations as another all-in-one 'product' that can be sold or leased as a turnkey operation for traditional automobile manufacturers to build their own brands of fully electric cars en masse. That would require a firm, long lasting financial commitment to building electric vehicles -- not just a handful of compliance cars.

Chevvy already shows that you don't need a huge Tesla size 300hp motor to get around town to not up traffic. A light car will be easy enough to develop if drivetrains are developed by Tesla and partners for them. I'm not sure Tesla would want tobe the builder of all those little motors, but someone will happily be taking those orders, and delivering quality.

I am certain that Tesla Motors does not exist to do such things. Anything they did before through Daimler or Toyota was merely a 'proof of concept' as far as Tesla was concerned. Traditional automobile manufacturers certainly dislike Tesla's terms of doing business. Usually, a vendor does not care what the heck you do with their products, as long as the check clears. Buy an Edelbrock exhaust manifold and hang it on the wall as modern art -- they won't care. Get a Bosch sensor suite and use it as a controller for your Christmas lights -- they won't care. So when Tesla Motors says you flat out cannot use their stuff to build hybrids or HFCEVs, no one knows how to react, except perhaps with disgust and incredulity.

Owners of small and cheap EV's, especially if there are a few million more EV's on the road, will increasingly be low income. No driveway, no private parking garage. No personal charger at home. They'll be more dependant on fast public charging. I suppose shopping malls and supermarkets could cater to that, they make a buck while customers charge their cars and are paying for it to boot. It doesn't cost the consumer time.

Low income people do not buy new cars. They buy used cars. That is a big part of the reason why most traditional automobile manufacturers have abandoned the sub-$15,000 market. Building an electric car with greatly reduced horsepower ratings will not magically give you vastly superior range. It doesn't work that way. That is why the 41.8 kWh 154 HP Toyota RAV4 EV has a 36 mile shorter range than the 40 kWh 300+ HP Tesla Model S 40.

The Model ☰ P100DL would be quite a car. It might a have lacklustre interior (to some) but with a low total mass (lower than any Model S?) and decent tires, it would put all ICE cars to shame @$50-55k.

All interiors are no more than window dressing over bare stamped metal -- I'll take vertical blinds over crushed velvet with tassels and tufted silk anytime.

The Model ☰ P100D would definitely defeat all comers. By a wide margin, at multiple venues, for a very long time. I expect to see something under 7:30 as a Nürburgring lap time.

Giving away (1,000) 2170 cells (20kWh) still doesn't sit well with me. Sure, they will make sure to get their margin, but it doesn't make sense. Doesn't this make the base model more expensive than it could be, by having to overcharge the ones that do upgrade to get their cost back?
That said, a 75kWh ☰ without performance should still be one really quick car.

The 'sense' comes in on the expectation of front end sales to get optional capacity, after purchase sales when someone pays to unlock capacity, and aftermarket sales of unlocked CPO vehicles on the back end. It may cost more to build, but that only affects the initial margin, not the sales price. The point is that it costs less to have a software limited pack than it does to design, physically manufacture, stock, and distribute yet another smaller capacity battery pack. Being cost effective is better than being cheap. The Model S 40 benefited from having a limited capacity battery pack with the voltage of a 60 kWh battery pack. So would a Model S 55 limited from a 75 kWh capacity.

At the reveal, would the prototypes already have had prototype 2170 cell pack, or for availability, 18650 limiting range and power?

I believe every Production ready version of the Model ☰ will include the new 2170 battery cell design and all updated power electronics and battery management systems. The prototypes could have had just about anything under the skin. But, since at least one of those driving called them 'engineering prototypes', I'd expect they used a version of the 2170 battery cells that seemed most promising at the time.

 

[Red Sage]

You guys are likely setting yourselves up for disappointment. I would be very surprised if the Model III had a top end battery as large as the top end S and X. The 100kwh battery will likely be for only the S and X next year, with the top end for the III topping out at a lower level. Even with the hoped for savings from the Gigafactory which have not been realized yet, batteries are expensive as hell.

I'd rather set myself up for disappointment than be resigned to it. I refuse to join the League of Lowered Expectations. So there.

I am Red Sage, your Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Certified Apologist Fanboy, and I approve this message.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Reminds me of the Cirque du Soleil setup on the Norwegian Breakaway cruise ship.....

 

[Red Sage]

Indeed. But they need it support their rate of growth and be robust in a dire economic climate.

Meh. I strongly suspect that the next 'dire economic climate' will hurt Acura, AUDI, BMW, Cadillac, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, and Mercedes-Benz a lot more than it will Tesla Motors. Because they all rely upon petroleum products being artificially 'cheap', and Tesla Motors cares not one whit.

 

[Red Sage]

Reminds me of the Cirque du Soleil setup on the Norwegian Breakaway cruise ship.....

Amazing what you can find in a Google image search for the terms 'crushed velvet curtains'. These red cabaret & drapes were apparently props for a production of Moulin Rouge. But yeah, for some folks, that is their vision of 'luxury' in a modern car.

 

[techmaven]

A slew of you here, @Red Sage primarily, are smoking something fierce.

At the cell level, moving to 21-70's will improve specific energy by almost nothing. Tesla's Model S and X battery packs are not volume limited, they are weight limited. While there would be a small reduction in specific energy on a cell level, it is probably not worth talking about. At the pack level, there will be less interconnects, and less plumbing, but we're talking likely single digit percentage-wise. And one more step with silicon in the anode is likely to be just another increment... another 8% or so. Combined, I'd be surprised if we more than 15% lighter on specific energy at the pack level. Probably more like 10-12% lighter. That means, at 90 kWh, we'd be 60 pounds lighter. Which is awesome... but doesn't lead one to say that we will get 120 kWh packs in the Model S or 100 kWh packs in the Model 3.

It is likely a Model 3 is substantially heavier than a Bolt or a Leaf. I'm guessing somewhere around 3,700 pounds. The Mercedes B-class electric, using a Tesla powertrain (motor, 40 kWh battery pack, etc) weighed in at 3,924 pounds.

If you use ecomodder's Aerodynamic & rolling resistance, power & MPG calculator, plug in some reasonable values like 3,650 pound weight, 0.0115 Crr, 0.22 Cd, and frontal area of 24.25 sq ft, you get 12.9 kW to travel at 65 mph constant speed, or almost 200 Wh/mi. That's 42.7 kWh to go 215 miles. Using slightly worse estimates, 3,750 pounds, 0.012 Crr, 0.22 Cd, and frontal area of 24.5 sq ft, you get 13.3 kW at 65 mph, 15.6 kW at 70 mph.

48-55 kWh is about right for the base size of the Model 3 pack, including reserve. The Model S is currently about 165 Wh/kg at the pack level. An increase of 10% would be around 180 Wh/kg. However, the smaller pack size has much of the overhead of the larger pack size if the Model S/X is a guide. Also, the Mercedes B class electric was 3,280 pounds without its battery pack. The Bolt is more like 2,600 pounds without its 960 pound battery pack. I'm guessing the Model 3 is closer to the B class weight w/o battery pack, at around 3,000 pounds w/o battery pack. Add to it a 50 kWh battery pack, with specific energy around 170 Wh/kg for the base model, we're looking at 650 pounds for the base battery pack. That's 3,650 pounds total curb weight.

As for estimating the upper bound, well, 100 kWh fantasy. In the Model 3, I suspect you run into both weight and volume problems, but it's really hard to tell which is the limiting factor. Did anyone measure the track of the Model 3 display cars? We can estimate the wheelbase.

 

[Cloxxki]

I am certain that Tesla Motors does not exist to do such things. Anything they did before through Daimler or Toyota was merely a 'proof of concept' as far as Tesla was concerned. Traditional automobile manufacturers certainly dislike Tesla's terms of doing business. Usually, a vendor does not care what the heck you do with their products, as long as the check clears. Buy an Edelbrock exhaust manifold and hang it on the wall as modern art -- they won't care. Get a Bosch sensor suite and use it as a controller for your Christmas lights -- they won't care. So when Tesla Motors says you flat out cannot use their stuff to build hybrids or HFCEVs, no one knows how to react, except perhaps with disgust and incredulity.

Oh, I didn't mean they'd be Tesla cars, just Tesla charged. They made it clear they don't intend to make anything cheaper than the Model ☰. Want a cheaper Tesla? Share it.

Low income people do not buy new cars. They buy used cars. That is a big part of the reason why most traditional automobile manufacturers have abandoned the sub-$15,000 market. Building an electric car with greatly reduced horsepower ratings will not magically give you vastly superior range. It doesn't work that way. That is why the 41.8 kWh 154 HP Toyota RAV4 EV has a 36 mile shorter range than the 40 kWh 300+ HP Tesla Model S 40.

Good point. There may be a market for low cost taxis and pizza delivery vehicles, though. If one can make a $15k ICE car, what does an equal level EV with modest "city use" range cost? Fleet cars and rentals can charge easily and cheaply.

The Model ☰ P100D would definitely defeat all comers. By a wide margin, at multiple venues, for a very long time. I expect to see something under 7:30 as a Nürburgring lap time.

If the power is fully available for 7:30 minutes, perhaps so, but it's more than a bit of a challenge. A hot hatch with half the power already does it sub-8.
Golf GTI Clubsport S 7min 49.21sec 310hp 1,360kg kerb weight Front wheel drive, even.

However, we know how horribly quickly a Model S sees its powered turned all the way down. Before long you're down from 500kW to 100kW and basically getting in the way of bikers.
For an unhandicapped Nürburgring time attack, some really impressive cooling will need to be brought forth, even when shutting off regen. A lighter car will suffer less from overheating, and the advancement of technology might make "heat limp" around 200kW rather than 100kW, but performance would still feel "hampered" I'm afraid.
In 2017 we're supposed to be seeing used P85+'s racing in their own series. http://how-to-cars.com/artikel/gt-neue-elektro-serie-10651877.html
Hopefully some lessons were already learned in turning these cars into racers. I look forward to this series actually. Formula E seems to be developing as slowly technically as they can get away with. Hope to be surprised.

Back to a Model ☰ on the ring. We need to recognize that the Golf mentioned above is very tricked out. To beat it, ☰ would not only need to keep it's power up, but also its weight down. It may well turn out that on the 'ring, a smaller battery pack is quicker. And who knows, even rear wheel drive. If there is power limitation, you want less weight sacrificing traction. Such an ☰ would not be rated by it's 0-XX time, but by laptime. A longer gear ratio seems logical to swiftly leap past 300kph. No corner is taken slower than 45-50kph or so, most time is spent between 120 and 220 I'd say, corners often around 80-100kph.

A Model 3 spec racing series would truly be something. Too bad Tesla don't do marketing so it would need to be a pure rich boys series.

 

[Cloxxki]

A slew of you here, @Red Sage primarily, are smoking something fierce.

At the cell level, moving to 21-70's will improve specific energy by almost nothing. Tesla's Model S and X battery packs are not volume limited, they are weight limited. While there would be a small reduction in specific energy on a cell level, it is probably not worth talking about. At the pack level, there will be less interconnects, and less plumbing, but we're talking likely single digit percentage-wise. And one more step with silicon in the anode is likely to be just another increment... another 8% or so. Combined, I'd be surprised if we more than 15% lighter on specific energy at the pack level. Probably more like 10-12% lighter. That means, at 90 kWh, we'd be 60 pounds lighter. Which is awesome... but doesn't lead one to say that we will get 120 kWh packs in the Model S or 100 kWh packs in the Model 3.

It is likely a Model 3 is substantially heavier than a Bolt or a Leaf. I'm guessing somewhere around 3,700 pounds. The Mercedes B-class electric, using a Tesla powertrain (motor, 40 kWh battery pack, etc) weighed in at 3,924 pounds.

The 2170 project is not an exercise merely be different. I've read multiple detailed estimates where the energy density per VOLUME is improve by at least 10% for the cell alone. Less wrapper, more content. Furthermore the 5mm taller cells are said to fit standing up in an S/X pack. Nearly 8% increase in pack volume utilization right there. Consider that the current 90kWh packs already show cchargingg behavior that suggest them being 100's running into some sort of limitation.
And all this is before we factor in a lower volume % in plumbing.

Apart from allowing a significantly higher number of kWh's in a given pack volume, there is indeed also the reduced specific weight per cell or per pack which helps, but much less spectacularly. It doesn't make a big pack light all at once.
I don't have all too high hopes that Model 3 is some featherweight with long range. If Model S is a porker for a large luxury sedan, then 3 will be a porker for a mid to large hatchback.
A slightly shorter wheelbase on the 3 is not going to force Tesla to half the pack volume compared to Model S, surely? And there is no rule to keep a pack exactly a certain thinness. A 1-2cm thicker pack can add dozens of kWh. Here's to hoping Tesla reserved a space nearly as big as on Model S/X to pack 90-100kWh from the get-go. It needs it to stun the world. For a new Tesla, the bar is set high.

 

[Red Sage]

Oh, I didn't mean they'd be Tesla cars, just Tesla charged. They made it clear they don't intend to make anything cheaper than the Model ☰. Want a cheaper Tesla? Share it.

That sentence was referring to the notion of Tesla Motors providing batteries and/or drivetrains to other automobile manufacturers. Unless someone is willing to build a long range vehicle that is designed from the ground up as fully electric... Something that is not a shared platform with ICE, hybrid, or hydrogen fuel cell cars... And build them in large quantities...? Tesla Motors is not interested. And traditional automobile manufacturers are not in any hurry whatsoever to hang badges that read 'Powered by TESLA' on their cars either.

Good point. There may be a market for low cost taxis and pizza delivery vehicles, though. If one can make a $15k ICE car, what does an equal level EV with modest "city use" range cost? Fleet cars and rentals can charge easily and cheaply.

Tesla Motors is not interested in single use vehicles that are purposely gimped by design. There is no 'commuter' car or 'city use' car. BYD is already going after fleet sales with their woefully pitiable E6. Too many vehicles sold to fleets are entirely generic and are boring beyond belief. They are cut to the bone when it comes to features and capabilities for the sake of being 'cheap' and are even more worthless after they have been abused for years on end. Tesla would not allow someone else to use their components in such foul excuses for transportation. They exist to foster the adoption of electric vehicles, not discourage it.

If the power is fully available for 7:30 minutes, perhaps so, but it's more than a bit of a challenge. A hot hatch with half the power already does it sub-8.
Golf GTI Clubsport S 7min 49.21sec 310hp 1,360kg kerb weight Front wheel drive, even.

I picked 7:30 because it is quite faster than the fastest time I found for a BMW M3 on this list. There is an M4 listed there at just under 7:28. Elon has been talking about taking on the BMW 3-Series for at least four years. I am certain he will want the best version of the Model ☰ to demolish even a 'tricked out' race prepared ICE.

There was the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Electric Drive:

But that was a good thirty seconds behind the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Black Series:

I think that a Tesla Generation III vehicle in Performance trim should be able to defeat them both. I can only hope that a race prepared Model ☰ would be able to finish the circuit sooner than an unapologetic American gas guzzler such as the Dodge Viper SRT-10 ACR:

However, we know how horribly quickly a Model S sees its powered turned all the way down. Before long you're down from 500kW to 100kW and basically getting in the way of bikers.
For an unhandicapped Nürburgring time attack, some really impressive cooling will need to be brought forth, even when shutting off regen. A lighter car will suffer less from overheating, and the advancement of technology might make "heat limp" around 200kW rather than 100kW, but performance would still feel "hampered" I'm afraid.
In 2017 we're supposed to be seeing used P85+'s racing in their own series. http://how-to-cars.com/artikel/gt-neue-elektro-serie-10651877.html
Hopefully some lessons were already learned in turning these cars into racers. I look forward to this series actually. Formula E seems to be developing as slowly technically as they can get away with. Hope to be surprised.

I feel obliged to note once again that Lithium-ion battery cells operate best between about 35 degrees Fahrenheit and 95 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a vastly smaller window of opportunity than for an ICE vehicle that needs to be 'cooled' to a range somewhere between 200 degrees Fahrenheit and 500 degrees Fahrenheit. That Tesla Motors vehicles can do what they already manage in cars that operate at room temperature is an astounding feat. Having to operate not only at a much lower temperature, but within only about 1/5th the range of temperatures is a massive achievement for an EV and should be applauded. So, in a world where the 'coldest' ICE is over 200 degrees, and the hottest EV that hasn't cooked itself yet is maybe 120 degrees, I would argue that EVs already have superior cooling capabilities. That Tesla Motors works to ensure their cars are built for longevity and durability should be praised, rather than heaping shame by saying they have a 'heating problem'.

Back to a Model ☰ on the ring. We need to recognize that the Golf mentioned above is very tricked out. To beat it, ☰ would not only need to keep it's power up, but also its weight down. It may well turn out that on the 'ring, a smaller battery pack is quicker. And who knows, even rear wheel drive. If there is power limitation, you want less weight sacrificing traction. Such an ☰ would not be rated by it's 0-XX time, but by laptime. A longer gear ratio seems logical to swiftly leap past 300kph. No corner is taken slower than 45-50kph or so, most time is spent between 120 and 220 I'd say, corners often around 80-100kph.

I cannot believe you chose, of all the vehicles in the world, that vehicle to use as a benchmark. It is, at the very least insulting. Just as bad to my sense of honor as the stupid commercial that showed Speed Racer choosing to drive one of those pieces of crap as a replacement for his Mach V. Couldn't you have at least picked something that looked good?

Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano -- 7:47 at Nürburgring.

Also, you forgot to note that almost every car listed that is faster than the Volkswagen weighs more than it. Race preparation is pretty much the same for most cars. You snatch out all the window dressing, throw in a single lightweight seat, add five-point seat belts, a fire suppression system, and a rollbar, then cross your fingers and pray not to die today. You may lighten the body by replacing body panels and windows with other materials. What I want to see is a street legal version of the Model ☰ with all creature comforts in place go to Nürburgring and destroy all comers. And do so in an embarrassing fashion that makes them all panic. I want all of the so-called 'competitors' to declare "It's not fair!" and move to have the results stricken from the record and electric cars banned from the circuit. But as long as YouTube exists there will be evidence of the impossible for all to see and bear witness to forevermore.

A Model 3 spec racing series would truly be something. Too bad Tesla don't do marketing so it would need to be a pure rich boys series.

Well, at least they would be happy rich boys. Hopefully they would be some of the same rich boys that are currently wasting their time with Mustangs, Porsches, and BMWs. That would put a smile on my face.

Target Acquired -- Fire for Effect!

 

[Red Sage]

A slew of you here, @Red Sage primarily, are smoking something fierce.

At the cell level, moving to 21-70's will improve specific energy by almost nothing. Tesla's Model S and X battery packs are not volume limited, they are weight limited. While there would be a small reduction in specific energy on a cell level, it is probably not worth talking about. At the pack level, there will be less interconnects, and less plumbing, but we're talking likely single digit percentage-wise. And one more step with silicon in the anode is likely to be just another increment... another 8% or so. Combined, I'd be surprised if we more than 15% lighter on specific energy at the pack level. Probably more like 10-12% lighter. That means, at 90 kWh, we'd be 60 pounds lighter. Which is awesome... but doesn't lead one to say that we will get 120 kWh packs in the Model S or 100 kWh packs in the Model 3.

It is likely a Model 3 is substantially heavier than a Bolt or a Leaf. I'm guessing somewhere around 3,700 pounds. The Mercedes B-class electric, using a Tesla powertrain (motor, 40 kWh battery pack, etc) weighed in at 3,924 pounds.

If you use ecomodder's Aerodynamic & rolling resistance, power & MPG calculator, plug in some reasonable values like 3,650 pound weight, 0.0115 Crr, 0.22 Cd, and frontal area of 24.25 sq ft, you get 12.9 kW to travel at 65 mph constant speed, or almost 200 Wh/mi. That's 42.7 kWh to go 215 miles. Using slightly worse estimates, 3,750 pounds, 0.012 Crr, 0.22 Cd, and frontal area of 24.5 sq ft, you get 13.3 kW at 65 mph, 15.6 kW at 70 mph.

48-55 kWh is about right for the base size of the Model 3 pack, including reserve. The Model S is currently about 165 Wh/kg at the pack level. An increase of 10% would be around 180 Wh/kg. However, the smaller pack size has much of the overhead of the larger pack size if the Model S/X is a guide. Also, the Mercedes B class electric was 3,280 pounds without its battery pack. The Bolt is more like 2,600 pounds without its 960 pound battery pack. I'm guessing the Model 3 is closer to the B class weight w/o battery pack, at around 3,000 pounds w/o battery pack. Add to it a 50 kWh battery pack, with specific energy around 170 Wh/kg for the base model, we're looking at 650 pounds for the base battery pack. That's 3,650 pounds total curb weight.

As for estimating the upper bound, well, 100 kWh fantasy. In the Model 3, I suspect you run into both weight and volume problems, but it's really hard to tell which is the limiting factor. Did anyone measure the track of the Model 3 display cars? We can estimate the wheelbase.

Meh. I could have read your entire post. But then I decided not to. See... I neither drink nor smoke. Never have. Never will. Too many of my relatives have died behind those habits. I'm kinda sick of burying them as a result. So, your very first sentence is incredibly insulting to me. It must be something inside.

A couple of paragraphs in, and I was done. You disagree. Fine. Talk to JB Straubel and leave me out of it. Goodbye.

 

[Cloxxki]

@Red Sage
I picked the Golf from a hot hatch top-10. And it's front wheel drive, the worst premise for a race car, which makes it interesting. It beat a 4WD Civic-R. Modest power though, compared to even a RWD P90 Tesla.
I did mention the weight. And while 1300+ for a Golf IMO is really heavy (having driven the 80's Renault Espace that was less), such is reality of modern cars. I'm not convinced this was a race car though, just more of an M3/AMG type of thing.
EV's don't get hot because they are more efficient. The best ICE car in the world for efficiency is perhaps the Mercedes AMG Hybrid Formula One racing car, at about 50%. It has regen and heat recovery, even turbo recovery wizardry.
This doesn't take away that if you try to push a Tesla around a track, alarm lights will start popping up. With all the safeties off it would be quicker, yes. But how would that affect durability? Saabs were famously driven full-speed non-stop for days, switching drivers, tires and fuel only.
Oh, I'd love for Model 3 to be closer to 1500 than to 2000kg. And come in a full-aluminum chassis option. Heck, even a very basic carbon chassis if it saved enough weight and made it stiffer. A Tesla "sport" version with some spoilers would catch the attention of a whole new demographic. The cooling, especially of the stators as I now understand, would need to be taken to another power of magnitude at the very least, to make acceleration out of the 10th corner be just like out of the first. And the 100th corner.
If a 7:30 has an average power output (after costing, braking, cornering) of 250kW, it takes 31kWh. A big battery would be needed to achieve the wished for 500kW output, though. So a 100kWh unit after alll, unless a more exotic battery is used. Good for 3 very hot laps. But can the battery do it? And what would it take to keep the motors functioning at this constant load?