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

[Jayc]

I think a 100kWh battery pack for Model 3 will be technically possible. However, I don't think they will do a P100DL just because it is doable. E.g. They might discover that a P100DL M3 will require its torque to be severely limited to prevent wheel spin or if they discover that the cost of battery as a percentage of the cost of car is too high and either of these scenarios will mean that a 100kWh battery is not a good match for Model 3.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Based on dimensional data, the Model 3 has 84% of the battery area of the Model S
So an 85kWh battery is realistic, if not 90kWh with battery density improvements (21700).

Where is your reference on this? 84%?

 

[Garlan Garner]

I think a 100kWh battery pack for Model 3 will be technically possible. However, I don't think they will do a P100DL just because it is doable. E.g. They might discover that a P100DL M3 will require its torque to be severely limited to prevent wheel spin or if they discover that the cost of battery as a percentage of the cost of car is too high and either of these scenarios will mean that a 100kWh battery is not a good match for Model 3.

I believe Tesla will build what sells. Wheel spin? Tesla is concerned about wheel spin?

Tesla is selling a $20K upgrde on the MS for 100D and you believe that's a good match? Tesla isn't a company that seems to hold back with anything - especially a concern over wheel spin. Have you seen Elons latest tweet? Tesla "almost" has the fastest 0-60 production car. "ELON" tweeted that. Elon and Tesla wants to be the fastest and the best and the most efficient and the most powerful with the longest range of every car in every class.

Bring it on Elon - you are doing great.

 

[Jayc]

Tesla is selling a $20K upgrde on the MS for 100D and you believe that's a good match? .

That's correct. The 100kWh battery is a perfect match for the Model S. Why? Because the architecture of the car is such that it can readily benefit from the improved battery capacity to give a meaningful boost to performance. And Model S is priced such that a 20k upgrade still makes sense and customers who are willing to pay 100k for a Performance Model S will consider the ultimate performance upgrade.

The Model 3 landscape is a bit different IMO. And don't forget that the ultimate upper limit to performance will be dictated by physics - the contact friction between tire surface and road. When you go past that point, the motors will be unable to unleash their peak torque so from a 0-60 performance perspective, this is when we will see a diminishing value to simply increasing battery capacity. There is no such upper limit to range but again, as EM has indicated, they have an optimal value beyond which they think it does not make sense to increase.

 

[Cloxxki]

That's correct. The 100kWh battery is a perfect match for the Model S. Why? Because the architecture of the car is such that it can readily benefit from the improved battery capacity to give a meaningful boost to performance.

I'd be interested which BEV would not have the architecture to allow it to take advantage from a larger battery.

And wheel spin....Tesla has traction control for that. How would they get away from a traffic light in the rain with 90kWh packs, but somehow dig themselves in with 100kWh? Anyways, it's not a given that peak power output increases along with battery capacity. If Tesla so chose, 1MW would be ultra easy to get out of the battery...for a very short while.

If Tesla is in the business of selling as many cars as they can, bigger packs is one of the ways. Wll absolutely work every time. And with this expensive upgrade for unupgraded cells, they prove that people pay a lot extra.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Where is your reference on this? 84%?

Wheelbase x width

 

[Garlan Garner]

That's correct. The 100kWh battery is a perfect match for the Model S. Why? Because the architecture of the car is such that it can readily benefit from the improved battery capacity to give a meaningful boost to performance. And Model S is priced such that a 20k upgrade still makes sense and customers who are willing to pay 100k for a Performance Model S will consider the ultimate performance upgrade.


The Model 3 landscape is a bit different IMO. And don't forget that the ultimate upper limit to performance will be dictated by physics - the contact friction between tire surface and road. When you go past that point, the motors will be unable to unleash their peak torque so from a 0-60 performance perspective, this is when we will see a diminishing value to simply increasing battery capacity. There is no such upper limit to range but again, as EM has indicated, they have an optimal value beyond which they think it does not make sense to increase.

Thats not what I meant.

Tesla has already stated that the $20K upgrade for the 100D line of MS is there to finance something else. Just like they did with the MS and MX as they financed the M3. Folks are running around this forum trying to justify the price of the upgrade. Tesla knows it's overpriced right now and they said it. However it doesn't seem to be overpriced for the affluent folks who buy MS's and MX's.

It's almost laughable that a 10% upgrade in battery - costs 1/5 the price of the entire car and folks believe that's a good deal. However when I consider who the customers are - Then I say....ok....I get it.

In other words. Almost everything Tesla makes could be cheaper if they weren't trying to finance the future with it. And that's fine with me. Its turning out to be an excellent business move.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Wheelbase x width

The wheel base of the M3 is almost the same as the MS.....I'm looking for the dimensions you used.

 

[JeffK]

or if they discover that the cost of battery as a percentage of the cost of car is too high

Considering the high end Model S is twice the price of the lowest end model...

They plan to approach $100/kWh but let's say they only get to $150/kWh and sell at a 20% margin so $18000 for a 100kWh battery. Add this to an AWD Model 3 you'd be looking at 35,000 + < $5000 + 18,000 = $58000. People will pay that for a 300+ mi EV add in the performance package and possibly ludicrous and you might still be under the base price of the BMW M3 depending on how tesla decides to price it.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Considering the high end Model S is twice the price of the lowest end model...

They plan to approach $100/kWh but let's say they only get to $150/kWh and sell at a 20% margin so $18000 for a 100kWh battery. Add this to an AWD Model 3 you'd be looking at 35,000 + < $5000 + 18,000 = $58000. People will pay that for a 300+ mi EV add in the performance package and possibly ludicrous and you might still be under the base price of the BMW M3 depending on how tesla decides to price it.

I agree. Double the price is a nice size spread to me.

 

[Jayc]

@JeffK and @Garlan Garner, you have convinced me that price wise, a Model 3 P100DL can be made to work.

Still unsure whether that much of torque will yield top performance in a smaller car. To give an extreme example, imagine we somehow attach a MS P100DL drivetrain and battery to a Nissan Leaf, would you think it will be capable of top end performance. I think basic physics favours a certain optimal design size for performance and seeing MS outrun Ferraris, I have a hunch MS might be that optimum but I may be wrong.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I agree. Double the price is a nice size spread to me.

I'd be OK with that. I think I'd start having to reevaluate the situation at $90K.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

@JeffK and @Garlan Garner, you have convinced me that price wise, a Model 3 P100DL can be made to work.

Still unsure whether that much of torque will yield top performance in a smaller car. To give an extreme example, imagine we somehow attach a MS P100DL drivetrain and battery to a Nissan Leaf, would you think it will be capable of top end performance. I think basic physics favours a certain optimal design size for performance and seeing MS outrun Ferraris, I have a hunch MS might be that optimum but I may be wrong.

Here's your biggest problem with trying to make a Leaf fast:

Drag Queens: Aerodynamics Compared - Feature

 

[JeffK]

@JeffK and @Garlan Garner, you have convinced me that price wise, a Model 3 P100DL can be made to work.

Still unsure whether that much of torque will yield top performance in a smaller car. To give an extreme example, imagine we somehow attach a MS P100DL drivetrain and battery to a Nissan Leaf...

Your factors are weight (Model 3 wins), Drag (Model 3 wins), tire grip and electronic traction control.

here's an extreme example:

This thing weighs about 300+ lbs, four 37 kW motors, and obviously has wide tires.

 

[Matias]

I just read this Fortune article today: Why Tesla's New Battery Pack Is Important
This paragraph caught my attention: "The 100-kilowatt hour battery pack will help differentiate the Model S and Model X from the less expensive Model 3, which is supposed to cost $35,000 and start shipping at the end of 2017. The range of the Model 3 isn’t supposed to be any more than 250 miles per charge, according to analysts".
I hope this won't be the case. What do you think? I have a Model 3 reserved but if none of the proposed ranges exceeds 300 miles at the time the production starts, I'll most likely cancel my reservation. Range is important for me. I understand that Tesla needs to differentiate the Model S from Model 3 but I don't think that range should be a factor. To me, Acceleration, Comfort/Luxury features, and Space should be differentiating factors.

I don't think that Tesla wants to leave your money on the table. I'm pretty sure they will produce 300 miles version of Model 3 also.

 

[LeiChat]

Who said that?

Hopefully nobody.
I was asking, rather than suggesting.

 

[diamond.g]

Thats not what I meant.

Tesla has already stated that the $20K upgrade for the 100D line of MS is there to finance something else. Just like they did with the MS and MX as they financed the M3. Folks are running around this forum trying to justify the price of the upgrade. Tesla knows it's overpriced right now and they said it. However it doesn't seem to be overpriced for the affluent folks who buy MS's and MX's.

It's almost laughable that a 10% upgrade in battery - costs 1/5 the price of the entire car and folks believe that's a good deal. However when I consider who the customers are - Then I say....ok....I get it.

In other words. Almost everything Tesla makes could be cheaper if they weren't trying to finance the future with it. And that's fine with me. Its turning out to be an excellent business move.

You also have to remember at this time the 100kwh pack also includes the ludicrous upgrade. So if you had a P90DL in the pipeline the battery change is only 10k... From what I can tell you can no longer get the the L upgrade on the P90D.

 

[Cloxxki]

I don't think that Tesla wants to leave your money on the table. I'm pretty sure they will produce 300 miles version of Model 3 also.

They've confirmed a "Ludicrous" option for Model 3. Whatever we are to expect with that name. And a varietry in battery options (at least more than just the base model). And they guaranteed the base model (single motor) would achieve 215 miles. Also AWD version were promised. Which brings rated range up a notch. So let's say, 230 miles for the entry level AWD version? With any variety in battery options, they're going to have a hard time keeping Model 3 under 300 miles.
My big question is whether they'll allow Model 3 to be the best car is can be, and make it the mileage champion than can make it to be. Model S P100DL is already such, they claim. A 100D version would go a good while further. But a Model 3 having (what, 15% to 25%?) lower consumption, and having built a gigafactory with the prime mission to get cheap batteries for it, only a really small battery would keep range a good notch under Model S's. What's the point of limiting the key performance metric (in mainstream press) of BEV's when you have all the weapons in hand to establish your leadership of a huge market once and for all? Why wait to see whether Chevvy can cook up something clever to undercut or overreacht you?
Putting Model 3 on the market, from the get-go with 400-450 miles just after you claimed world domonication with 315 miles...that would get people's attention. You could fill a huge order book with unrefundable priority orders for the thing. Built that Model 3 factory that only has rew materials and tiny parts entering through the supplier's entrance. By rail. Heck, let the train run right through your raw materials warehouse, continuing on to the waste disposal and ready product warehouses.

It's a "world domination" switch. Would Tesla decide to not flip it, only to not lose too many Model S sales? They can always make the Model S more luxury or price it more friendly. Or, design an way bigger battery for it. Like 150-160kWh for 500 miles of range. It's a matter of choice, not technological possibility at this point. Yes at this stage it would be a porker, but the long range models could be marketed more for ease of use and comfort than 0-60mph nonsense. Even though the porky 150kWh model would pull 9-second 1/4's by virtue of not letting up as early.
Even if the ultra range version would come in RWD only, a small motor so lots of power limitation, people would buy the heck out of it. How much power does one need? I could totally be happy with a Model S with 200kW and 450-500 mile range. For me half that would suffice, for the broad market, an ultra range version WOULD sell. The moment Tesla feels they need more market share, use available capacity, they can make they cars to go further. Especially now their battery costs are falling so hard and in doing deviate from the rest of the market.
What to do with a monopoly on cheap energy storage? Offer products with vast energy storage! To an extent development cost and at the moment production capacity and cash flow may limit this, but not forever. Soon enough they'll sell 500,000 Model 3's per year, with 15-25% margin.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

It's a "world domination" switch. Would Tesla decide to not flip it, only to not lose too many Model S sales? They can always make the Model S more luxury or price it more friendly. Or, design an way bigger battery for it. Like 150-160kWh for 500 miles of range. It's a matter of choice, not technological possibility at this point. Yes at this stage it would be a porker, but the long range models could be marketed more for ease of use and comfort than 0-60mph nonsense. Even though the porky 150kWh model would pull 9-second 1/4's by virtue of not letting up as early.

I think Tesla as a company has reached a point where Elon has to throw the "World Domination Switch". With everything he's said in the lead-up to Model 3 about promoting sustainable transport, doing anything that would in any way hinder sales of any of their models would be irresponsible to the shareholders.

For everyone saying they will hinder the Model 3 to keep it somehow "lesser" than S/X......I don't think Elon sees it that way.

He'd rather Osborne 10,000 Model S sales and convert them to Model 3 sales, as long as those consumers don't become BMW, M-B, Audi, Lexus, etc buyers.

 

[jbcarioca]

Back to the thread title for a moment:
1) At current expectations they should be able to manage ~100 kWh for max pack capacity, which should yield something in the vicinity of 375 mi rated range, assuming cd improvements, continued pack efficiency, the complete rework of vehicle electrical architecture that itself should offer range improvement and other tweaks. I won't even think about speculating specifics because none of us really have a basis for doing too much of that yet.
2) I'll also suggest that there will be another big jump in S and X packs around the same time when the gigafactory can support teh new form factor production volumes. We should have something on the order of 120 kWh in a new pack.
3) Given other intimations and guesswork I'll wager the new cooling design will be much more efficient in the larger form factor cells, so should also provide substantially lower installed weight kWh. As we see with the current 100 kWh pack, weight reduction in the BMS provides increased power/weight benefits even without material improvements in cell chemistry. This type of progress should yield significant upgrades through the entire range coincidental with Model 3 ramp up.
4) We already see 48v systems beginning to be produced, and the next three years will probably see the entire industry switch because of the demands for ICE and hybrid innovations such as electric superchargers, electrically controlled transmissions, electrically intensive vehicle communications, etc. That means Model 3 and he revised S and X will all probably be 48v, thus removing the dreaded 12v battery replacement from our lives while reducing passive losses and the vampires. We are not discussing this much, but it is quite reasonable to expect at least a 10% improvement in range from this alone, since ICE installations seem to be getting 15% already.
Delphi Says Regulations Will Drive Automakers to 48V Electrical Systems
Audi SQ7 TDI Features Three Blowers, 48-Volt Electrical System » AutoGuide.com News

It's quite logical that part of the huge capital costs being incurred right now are to accommodate improvements throughout the entire product line, not just Model 3, and that the effective range and performance improvements will be coming more from total system redesign rather than just cell improvements. I am not denigrating cell improvements at all, but emphasizing the gigantic strides now coming from improved electrical and BMS designs. Remember that JB has been telling us to expect such things without details for some years now.