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

[Garlan Garner]

90 kWh would weigh in at around 500 kg, or 1,100 lbs. That's a lot for a much smaller car.

Maybe at current level of battery technology. techmaven - we have over 18 months to go. Do you think that battery technology "TODAY" will be the same in 18 months? Absolutely not.

Look at battery technology 18 months ago the 18650 was the top-of-the line. People were in awe of it everywhere you turned.

Now its being replaced by the 20700. Lets all say it together "ooooohhhhh" - nice.

Now - Fast forward 18 months and lets say it early about whats replacing the 20700..... "ooooohhhhhh".

 

[techmaven]

Maybe at current level of battery technology. techmaven - we have over 18 months to go. Do you think that battery technology "TODAY" will be the same in 18 months? Absolutely not.

No, this is assuming the next step change with more silicon in the anode.

 

[Garlan Garner]

No, this is assuming the next step change with more silicon in the anode.

I could care less about how they do it. Battery technology is going to evolve faster than anything else related to EV's.

 

[Red Sage]

90 kWh would weigh in at around 500 kg, or 1,100 lbs. That's a lot for a much smaller car.

God. 40% improvement in energy density to me means 40% fewer equivalent cells to hold a given amount of energy. And that tells me less weight to bear to carry it. Damn.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Wait...hold on..did I read that graphic correctly?

A 25% REDUCTION IN COST? Wait what? Are you kidding me? That's the same thing Tesla said. Well fancy that.

Wait again..... with room for improvement with changes in chemistry.... I have to sit down. I'm getting light headed.

I was starting to believe all of the battery haters in this forum.

Tesla can't.....ABC .... It will never fit
Tesla can't .....DEF..... It will cost too much
Tesla can't.....GHI......They haven't put it in the MS yet.
Tesla can't......JKL.....There isn't enough room.....
Tesla can't......MNO....That's why the starting price for the M3 will be a million dollars...
whine, whine, whine.

 

[Garlan Garner]

God. 40% improvement in energy density to me means 40% fewer equivalent cells to hold a given amount of energy. And that tells me less weight to bear to carry it. Damn.

Preach it Red.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I'm tired of reading statements such as "A M3 only needs X amount of KW to get 300 miles". I DON'T CARE what the minimum number of KWs is to get 300 miles!!! I care about how many KW Tesla can pack in there! More is always better!

Ok everyone ... I am about to let a huge secret out of the bag concerning how Tesla is going to create so many battery packs so fast. This is behind the scenes footage that the Gigafactory tour was sure not to cover.

Allow me to introduce "Ronald". Ronald was recently known a s the rubiks cube champion of Planet Earth. He could solve a rubiks cube in less than 8.1 seconds. Tesla hired Ronald to see how fast he could insert five hundred 210700 cells into a battery casing. Again Ronald's times were sub 9 seconds. You can see Ronald below practicing for the "Cell Insert Championship" that will be held on July 1st 2017. Ronald spends approx. 16 hours a day sitting on the floor practicing which results in about 80 M3's cars per day worth of packs.

Unfortunately at that pace Ronald will only be able to produce 40K M3's worth of battery packs in 18 months. Another unfortunate situation is that due to Ronalds efficiency....Tesla is thinking about letting go of Ronald Sr. below who only produces 10 M3's worth of packs per day.

Well Elon found out that I let the cat out of the bag and he sent me another reservation gift with a personal signed photo of himself.

From my vantage point...I don't think his expression is saying. "Thanks".

_____________

OMG....I am soo bored.......... I can't wait for my M3.

 

[YBT]

Could it be that bigger improvements in the "immediate future" are more in improving acceleration of overtaking speed and acceleration at speeds above 60mph/ 100 km/h? Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you.

Tesla are constantly looking to improve both - and have been steadily. 100km/h performance is a metric where they lag ICE vehicles to a degree so would make the most sense to pursue from an engineering standpoint. Yet 0 - 100km/h times sell cars so really we will see both improved moving forward.

 

[Lex]

This thread's heart is in the right place, so let's stoke the fire a bit Seems we've missed discussing a critical vehicle performance factor so far...

More is always better!

So you would prefer more weight on your sport(y) car ? Not for me, thanks.

For those of you not yet inside a Tesla, let me tell you first-hand that they are heavy ass cars. JB and co.'s amazing one-pedal software makes it feel exquisite but in the odd occasion regen kicks out (eg. can happen over rough pavement) you get a serious reminder the car's weight (and amazingly low rolling resistance).

While "buy the pack you can afford" is likely almost always the best advice, I was also very happy to have a lighter car versus the 85 or 90+ packed cars (this is why I am on the fence about the whole "software pack unlock" thing but that's another topic).

With my last full sized ICE sedan (also a heavy beast) I actively worked to reduce its weight by about the mass of a person -- which by my rough math is around the difference between an 85 and my car's 70 pack.

As many of your may know, the weight of 1 person can make a big difference in your car's performance. Then again the electric motors seem to do much better in dealing with the added mass, so there's that.

 

[jbcarioca]

There does remain the issue that JB has repeatedly told us that 'most' of the improvements in efficiency during the next few years will come from electrical, BMS, packaging and related improvements. Cost reductions he said are coming primarily from improved production efficiencies and vertical integration in cell/battery pack manufacturing. I do not recall any prognostications that definitively delineate energy density vs cost reduction vs installed weight reduction in these subjects, but a variety of articles/discussions make me think that these are yielding >30% cost reductions when mega factory is in full swing, and that net energy efficiency will be at least 25% improved in Generation 3 applications.

Then there are the improvements from gradually improving anodes (mostly increased silicon, presumably), plus tweaks in chemistry otherwise. These, per JB, give something in the order of 6-7% pa improvement.

Lastly, as mentioned in threads before, the 48 volt ancillary equipment that is becoming the standard for the auto industry now, probably ubiquitous by the 2020 model year, will, according to Delphi, give 15% or more MPG improvement for ICE applications. For Tesla we'll have lower passive losses ( probably less due to 48v per se than to complete Generation 3 redesign of all non-driving energy use) and more stable/efficient heating and cooling, thus yielding greater range and better performance for all the purchased electrical stuff. All of that category will be pretty much 'free' since the industry is doing that right now.

I do not mean to continuously harp on this topic. However, I do think we are underestimating the enormous virtuous shift in electrical efficiency that is happening in the industry today. With not much question this topic alone will make the next generation (from Model 3 onwards) match or exceed the Delphi ICE 15% efficiency improvement.

 

[jkk_]

This thread's heart is in the right place, so let's stoke the fire a bit Seems we've missed discussing a critical vehicle performance factor so far...


So you would prefer more weight on your sport(y) car ? Not for me, thanks.

For those of you not yet inside a Tesla, let me tell you first-hand that they are heavy ass cars. JB and co.'s amazing one-pedal software makes it feel exquisite but in the odd occasion regen kicks out (eg. can happen over rough pavement) you get a serious reminder the car's weight (and amazingly low rolling resistance).

While "buy the pack you can afford" is likely almost always the best advice, I was also very happy to have a lighter car versus the 85 or 90+ packed cars (this is why I am on the fence about the whole "software pack unlock" thing but that's another topic).

With my last full sized ICE sedan (also a heavy beast) I actively worked to reduce its weight by about the mass of a person -- which by my rough math is around the difference between an 85 and my car's 70 pack.

As many of your may know, the weight of 1 person can make a big difference in your car's performance. Then again the electric motors seem to do much better in dealing with the added mass, so there's that.

You're correct. The thing is, however, that model 3 isn't a sports car but needs to be* a vehicle that can satisfy all** requirements and function as a family's only car. And as such, it's important that it has enough*** battery capacity i.e., range. This might in turn mean that you get "extra passenger" with you affecting sporty aspects of the car in a negative fashion.

Oh boy, that was a lot of additions:

*) IMO, needs to be in order to change the public perspective from ICE to BEV
**) Related to the above, my impression is that at that price point it's not uncommon to have single car rather than multiple ones
***) What is enough is of course relative, I've felt that 300 miles EPA (or even better, 500km or 310 miles EPA) is the critical point because then you have enough real word range to cover normal driving even in worse conditions during winter etc. So, as such, I'd rather have "extra passenger" as opposed to EPA range of 270 miles or something.

 

[Cloxxki]

A 500kg pack (if necessary for 90kWh) in the Model 3 is a lot of weight, obviously. But would a 400kg pack make the 70kWh a better car? It's 100kg difference on a car that will likely be around 1700-1800kg, certainly in dual motor specification.
Model 3 is not going to be truly light car even with a 20kWh battery. For that, I suppose they should build much smaller, less powerful motors, and use only one.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

A 500kg pack (if necessary for 90kWh) in the Model 3 is a lot of weight, obviously. But would a 400kg pack make the 70kWh a better car? It's 100kg difference on a car that will likely be around 1700-1800kg, certainly in dual motor specification.
Model 3 is not going to be truly light car even with a 20kWh battery. For that, I suppose they should build much smaller, less powerful motors, and use only one.

I think the more apt comparison we should be making here is:

How much does a 2.0L turbo ICE weigh compared to a XXkWH battery pack?

If Tesla is able to achieve the efficiencies they are while keeping the weight lower, or at least not too much higher than the engines in comparable-class ICEs, they're ahead of the game.

 

[JeffK]

For that, I suppose they should build much smaller, less powerful motors, and use only one.

This product already exists:

 

[diamond.g]

I think the more apt comparison we should be making here is:

How much does a 2.0L turbo ICE weigh compared to a XXkWH battery pack?

If Tesla is able to achieve the efficiencies they are while keeping the weight lower, or at least not too much higher than the engines in comparable-class ICEs, they're ahead of the game.

Adding a turbo and associated plumbing typically shouldn't add more than 100# of weight.

 

[JeffK]

How much does a 2.0L turbo ICE weigh compared to a XXkWH battery pack?

Let's compare apples to apples.
Bugatti Veyron has a similar 0-60 time as the new 100kWh P100DL.

The engine weighs 400 kg not counting transmission, and gasoline weight.

In a Tesla the motors weigh about 31 kg and the battery weighs 500 kg when you count the enclosure weight (about 380 kg counting the cells only).

The Tesla can also seat 5 instead of only 2 and in a pinch as we know, the Tesla can be used to float for short periods of time:

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Let's compare apples to apples.
Bugatti Veyron has a similar 0-60 time as the new 100kWh P100DL.

The engine weighs 400 kg not counting transmission, and gasoline weight.

In a Tesla the motors weigh about 31 kg and the battery weighs 500 kg when you count the enclosure weight (about 380 kg counting the cells only).

The Tesla can also seat 5 instead of only 2 and in a pinch as we know, the Tesla can be used to float for short periods of time:

I think we've found our winner.....

 

[Garlan Garner]

A 500kg pack (if necessary for 90kWh) in the Model 3 is a lot of weight, obviously. But would a 400kg pack make the 70kWh a better car? It's 100kg difference on a car that will likely be around 1700-1800kg, certainly in dual motor specification.
Model 3 is not going to be truly light car even with a 20kWh battery. For that, I suppose they should build much smaller, less powerful motors, and use only one.

Are you not reading the thread? Are you not listening to Tesla? Its almost like the whole thread needs to be quoted in my response, however I don't have time.

The Battery is NOT going to be heavier....18 months from now I suspect the batteries / inverter / motor will all be 50% lighter and 50% more powerful. The reason I believe that is because of the "past" history of Tesla.
Please don't respond with some mumbo jumbo numbers because they will be irrelevant to what's going to happen in 18 months. None of you know.

 

[Garlan Garner]

A 500kg pack (if necessary for 90kWh) in the Model 3 is a lot of weight, obviously. But would a 400kg pack make the 70kWh a better car? It's 100kg difference on a car that will likely be around 1700-1800kg, certainly in dual motor specification.
Model 3 is not going to be truly light car even with a 20kWh battery. For that, I suppose they should build much smaller, less powerful motors, and use only one.

Why should everything be smaller and less efficient? Why? In order to accomplish what?

 

[Cloxxki]

@ Garlan Garner
Take a breath. I'm not the enemy. And I believe in progress. Just, Tesla has as yet only show the 6% from 85 to 90kWh, over 4 year. The new cooling adds a bit of density to a pack perhaps, certainly per litre if not per kg. The 21-70 cells add density per liter (10%) and possibly a similar amount per kg.

Not EVERYTHING needs to be more efficient. I just wonder whether the motors Tesla uses to take the very last Watt from their battery packs are ideal for the often discussed range (and -anxiety).
Today's Tesla drivers are basically yups, right? Perhaps mid life crisis sufferers. Delivery drivers and pensioners are not yet part of the buying audience. Some will actually value (*gasp*) range over 0-60mph time. The D, while cruising at modest speeds in range mode sends most power to the smaller front motor. Seems small motors add range? And the power it can produce is still plenty for the average motorist. Also, big motors add cost.
This topic is about Model 3. The lowest cost car Tesla will ever offer. It's not only going to be the spare "wife" car for Model X and Roadster owners.
I don't think the big motors waste A LOT of range, but some, sure. And add cost. Competing EV's never seem to disappoint, as cars in general, for acceleration within road law.