Garlan Garner
Banned
I want a fast car. Period.
If you don't want a fast car - then drive it in valet mode.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?
- Thread starter ModelNforNerd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
I want a fast car. Period.
If you don't want a fast car - then drive it in valet mode.
No, it's not Ronald that's going to increase battery production times it's RON-A1D:
You know I've grown accustomed to you responding to several posters at the same time but now that you're responding to your own I'm expecting your posts to increase exponentially.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I'm telling you the truth....try building a performance version of anything and you will more understand Teslas delimas.
My electric mower - I have to be concerned about:
A. How to charge the LifPo4 batteries. You can't just hook these batteries up and charge them. They need a BMS (battery management system) to charge them. If you charge them too fast and they get hot then you could potentially get into what's known as thermal runaway. This occurs when one cell gets extremely hot. If the cell next to it starts to overheat as a result - it's voltage can/will over run its limits and it then starts to overheat.
B. If I have a single cell battery that for some reason doesn't drain as much as the others and I start to charge my battery pack.......it could potentially overcharge more than the rest. If I have 3.04V batteries and 99% of the battery cells start off its charge at .8V and one cell is 2.1V at the start..... I have to have a BMS that will shut off that cells (shunt) when that battery gets to 3.04V because it will continue to charge as I try to get those .8V cells up to 3.4V. That 2.1V battery could start a daisy chain of thermal overload if my BMS goes bad. So cooling is as essential as my BMS system.
One of the reasons I couldn't place the batteries closer together was because of potential thermal runaway. Tesla seems to have found a more efficient way of cooling their old 18650 cells which results as them being able to place them closer together. Thereby being able to put more cells into the same space - resulting in the 100D series.
JS indicated that the 18650 cell packs have almost reached their technical exhaustion. If the 18650 pack are sunset with 315 miles of range and 0-60 at 2.5 then they would have more than done their job. It only took 4 years of experiments and investments to get us this far. I wonder what another 18 months ( almost half of another 4 year journey ) will be birthed by the M3 as it will utilize the 2170's.
Just imagine - The 2170's are starting off their birth being able to start of at 0-60 at 2.5 seconds and 300 miles of range. As it has been stated by JS at the 100D announcement - Tesla won't even need all of the space under the M3 to provide it with 315 miles and a 0-60 @2.5.
My electric mower - I have to be concerned about:
A. How to charge the LifPo4 batteries. You can't just hook these batteries up and charge them. They need a BMS (battery management system) to charge them. If you charge them too fast and they get hot then you could potentially get into what's known as thermal runaway. This occurs when one cell gets extremely hot. If the cell next to it starts to overheat as a result - it's voltage can/will over run its limits and it then starts to overheat.
B. If I have a single cell battery that for some reason doesn't drain as much as the others and I start to charge my battery pack.......it could potentially overcharge more than the rest. If I have 3.04V batteries and 99% of the battery cells start off its charge at .8V and one cell is 2.1V at the start..... I have to have a BMS that will shut off that cells (shunt) when that battery gets to 3.04V because it will continue to charge as I try to get those .8V cells up to 3.4V. That 2.1V battery could start a daisy chain of thermal overload if my BMS goes bad. So cooling is as essential as my BMS system.
One of the reasons I couldn't place the batteries closer together was because of potential thermal runaway. Tesla seems to have found a more efficient way of cooling their old 18650 cells which results as them being able to place them closer together. Thereby being able to put more cells into the same space - resulting in the 100D series.
JS indicated that the 18650 cell packs have almost reached their technical exhaustion. If the 18650 pack are sunset with 315 miles of range and 0-60 at 2.5 then they would have more than done their job. It only took 4 years of experiments and investments to get us this far. I wonder what another 18 months ( almost half of another 4 year journey ) will be birthed by the M3 as it will utilize the 2170's.
Just imagine - The 2170's are starting off their birth being able to start of at 0-60 at 2.5 seconds and 300 miles of range. As it has been stated by JS at the 100D announcement - Tesla won't even need all of the space under the M3 to provide it with 315 miles and a 0-60 @2.5.
Garlan Garner
Banned
OHHHH NOOOOO Ronald is going to lose his job?No, it's not Ronald that's going to increase battery production times it's RON-A1D:
Garlan Garner
Banned
It's interesting.
Within the cylindrical format, Tesla squeezed 10% of pack density from a more space efficient cooling system. Whether the available extra head space was now used up by a different cell orientation (making it less impressive?), remains to be confirmed.
The space between cells to be saved is very much finite, though. Tesla are probably already halfway or more of the ultimate limit for cells that might overheat? Great progress.
And yes, while we are then stuck with only 6% of chemistry improvement over 4 years, the unexpected 10% space bonus, at least for the S/X pack, offers some hope that it may translate to the 2170 packs. Surely JB knew about this upcoming cooling improvement to include in his 40% II>III pack density prediction? Anyway, the cooling advancement could well (if still vertical cellls) add likeliness of that prediction to come true. 85 + 40%=119kWh.
However, if the cells indeed are still vertical, possible leaving the available headspace large intact, supposing the cooling trick translates well to 2170, perhaps we will not even get (or need) a chemistry update in the 2170's to reach that 40%.
100kWh + 10% (2170 density) + 7,7% (70mm in stead of 65mm) = 119kWh already.
Some people whisperr about a new chemistry. If that's an update that makes up for the annual upgrades we've been missing out on over 4 of the 5 years leading up to 2017, it could be huge. But JB would included that in his 40%, right? Hmm....
This cooling advancement could be an added bonus, NOT included in the 40%. We might see another +10% or so from a chemistry update then. The cooling might save a bit less (8.5% against 18650's 10%) since there are fewer layers of cell to save space between.
But could we see 130-135kWh for the first S/X packs with 2170's? If true, and let's hope it, the Model 3 may be very well endowed itself. 100kWh from a smaller car wouldn't be outrageous of the big brothers just got 130-135... Model 3 would not beat the S for range, but ~370-380 miles (360 with ludicrous?) of EPA rated range wouldn't look too shabby with competing brands promising 300 miles (at lower european standard) in the distant future, with no hint as yet at a high speed charging infrastructure for it.
I can't wait to hear some confirmations!
Within the cylindrical format, Tesla squeezed 10% of pack density from a more space efficient cooling system. Whether the available extra head space was now used up by a different cell orientation (making it less impressive?), remains to be confirmed.
The space between cells to be saved is very much finite, though. Tesla are probably already halfway or more of the ultimate limit for cells that might overheat? Great progress.
And yes, while we are then stuck with only 6% of chemistry improvement over 4 years, the unexpected 10% space bonus, at least for the S/X pack, offers some hope that it may translate to the 2170 packs. Surely JB knew about this upcoming cooling improvement to include in his 40% II>III pack density prediction? Anyway, the cooling advancement could well (if still vertical cellls) add likeliness of that prediction to come true. 85 + 40%=119kWh.
However, if the cells indeed are still vertical, possible leaving the available headspace large intact, supposing the cooling trick translates well to 2170, perhaps we will not even get (or need) a chemistry update in the 2170's to reach that 40%.
100kWh + 10% (2170 density) + 7,7% (70mm in stead of 65mm) = 119kWh already.
Some people whisperr about a new chemistry. If that's an update that makes up for the annual upgrades we've been missing out on over 4 of the 5 years leading up to 2017, it could be huge. But JB would included that in his 40%, right? Hmm....
This cooling advancement could be an added bonus, NOT included in the 40%. We might see another +10% or so from a chemistry update then. The cooling might save a bit less (8.5% against 18650's 10%) since there are fewer layers of cell to save space between.
But could we see 130-135kWh for the first S/X packs with 2170's? If true, and let's hope it, the Model 3 may be very well endowed itself. 100kWh from a smaller car wouldn't be outrageous of the big brothers just got 130-135... Model 3 would not beat the S for range, but ~370-380 miles (360 with ludicrous?) of EPA rated range wouldn't look too shabby with competing brands promising 300 miles (at lower european standard) in the distant future, with no hint as yet at a high speed charging infrastructure for it.
I can't wait to hear some confirmations!
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind 21700 cells are 16.66% wider in both directions and 7.7% taller....
(It's early in the morning so if I'm totally off I'll be the first to admit it...)
If laid out vertically 21700 cells would take up 136% of the area of the current Model S battery (36% greater). Therefore you must have less cells assuming they aren't stacked. If we set the current max as X number of cells for 100kWh and we have Y as the area of 21700 cells then we'd have Y = X * (1/1.36) or Y = 0.735X cells.
If we assume a 40% increase in energy then we have Y = 1.4 * 0.735X or Y = 1.02X. ( 102 kWh )
If that is correct *and they stick with a vertical orientation* then the capacity of a 21700 battery pack in the same space as the current 18650 battery pack would have only slightly greater capacity. What that would do, however, is dramatically decrease the price especially with scale of the gigafactory. Assuming no gigafactory scaling and if the cells were about the same cost then you instantly go from $190/kWh to about $140/kWh at the pack level. When you factor in scaling you can bring this down even further.
Like I said it's early in the morning and my math circuits aren't warmed up (It's vacuum tubes and hamsters up there).
I have a 2015 Audi A3. VAG is notorious for neutering their ICE engines, and of course, software buggery in their diesels, but I digress......
They build their engines and internals to handle much more power than the final output ends up being.
Case in point: my A3 is advertised at 220HP. Fresh off-the-lot vehicles have routinely put out ~235HP when dyno'd. I took it upon myself to change out the air intake, and re-flash the ECU. I dyno'd my car this spring at 316HP.
The A3 weighs about 400lbs less than the A4, and I am currently putting out 96HP more than a stock A4 (same 2.0T 4-cyl engine). My car is way more enjoyable to drive.
My 0-60 is a hair under 5 seconds, which is fun......where it's the most fun is through the mid-range, as you discussed. Passing is a blast.....
And I can't wait to do it in a Model 3. Now, I have to downshift to spool the turbo up in order to access the passing power.....in my Model 3, it will be neck-snappingly instant!!
Garlan Garner
Banned
Garlan Garner
Banned
So a 10 % increase in size results in a 33% increase in volume and energy AND 25% cheaper. I'll take it.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
That's not from Tesla afaik... it's from seekingalpha and it's also incorrect... it's a 21700 not a 20700 (and that's confirmed by JB)
I noticed you kept posting it but I didn't want to say anything
Garlan Garner
Banned
Yes it was from Tesla. It was originally from Panasonic. The Battery name has changed since they scrapped that original model 20700.That's not from Tesla afaik... it's from seekingalpha and it's also incorrect... it's a 21700 not a 20700
I noticed you kept posting it but I didn't want to say anything
Anyway... the figures are true.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Actually, the point is that if you keep talking about supping up your lawn mower and I keep taling abotu drinking while mowing the lawn we're going to end up on a YouTube video that starts with "Hey, y'all, watch this!"
If we survive we could make some money !
That's why I bought a townhouse.......
someone else comes and does my lawn every Monday, so on Saturday mornings, I can get out and do things I enjoy, which almost invariably means I get to drive past the miserable people who just spent 60 hours during the week working and commuting, all to be rewarded with a weekend of manual labor in 90 degree heat.....
Garlan Garner
Banned
I'm talking about the challenges of LifePo4 batteries as I used an example of converting my lawnmower to explore these challenges.Actually, the point is that if you keep talking about supping up your lawn mower and I keep taling abotu drinking while mowing the lawn we're going to end up on a YouTube video that starts with "Hey, y'all, watch this!"
If we survive we could make some money !
For example - Look at the post right above this one. This thread quickly gets ADD or something.
This is ludicrous. <---- see what I did there? I used that word again.
Time for my mic drop.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
If you say so... but since the image is from March of 2015 (and from seeking alpha unless you can cite a source otherwise) the numbers don't match anything said by JB this year... Nothing about that graphic is accurate.
Similar threads
