Just landed in my e-mail box earlier today. Perfect timing:
Should you go with a 48 amp or a 72 amp Charger for your next Tesla?
Should you go with a 48 amp or a 72 amp Charger for your next Tesla?
-
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
Garlan Garner
Banned
Forgive me if it's already been stated, but Tesla has mentioned that they have a more dense battery pack for the M≡.
Lets say for example that the space that they have to put a battery in the M≡ is 10% smaller than the MS however if the cells are 25% more dense - wouldn't the M≡ essentially have "more battery" than the MS?
Lets say for example that the space that they have to put a battery in the M≡ is 10% smaller than the MS however if the cells are 25% more dense - wouldn't the M≡ essentially have "more battery" than the MS?
Swampgator
Active Member
Garlan,
I think what Tesla have said is they will have higher cell density for M3 batteries. Not a more dense battery pack, unless I missed that, and if so, please point me to the link.
Thanks
I think what Tesla have said is they will have higher cell density for M3 batteries. Not a more dense battery pack, unless I missed that, and if so, please point me to the link.
Thanks
Swampgator
Active Member
And basic physics shows that M3 will need much less battery capacity to go a given number of miles than MS
Lighter weight (20%), smaller frontal area, and lower CD both point to the notion that a 300 mile M3 may need less than a 70kwh battery.
Lighter weight (20%), smaller frontal area, and lower CD both point to the notion that a 300 mile M3 may need less than a 70kwh battery.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Remember the cells are bigger and therefore the pack should be less dense if they're still packing them vertically. So you might have a 10% smaller battery, with 10% larger cells, each holding nearly 40% more energy. Someone will have to get more accurate numbers and do some number crunching.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
I can ballpark it for you... But it's a pretty wide and deep park... With a lot of room for error.
I have every confidence it will be possible to own a Model ☰ with 100 kWh battery pack capacity before the end of 2017. I base this on the fact the car will still have a rather long wheelbase for its class, while still being slightly wider than its direct competitors. Also, JB Straubel has indicated he expects about a 40% energy density improvement for Model ☰ in 2017 compared to Model S in 2012. That is similar to the energy density improvement he witnessed from the Tesla Roadster to the Model S.
Even if the Model ☰ battery pack is only 80% the volume of those used in Model S and Model X, there will still be the ability to accommodate 100 kWh of storage. Here's why... With a 40% improvement in energy density, 85 kWh of energy could be stored within the space that previously held 51 kWh. Likewise, 100 kWh can be stored within the volume that would have held 60 kWh. Since 60 kWh occupied only about ~71% of the volume of 85 kWh...? That means that 100 kWh would fit within the 80% volume limit with relative ease.
The energy held within the new 2170 battery cells has a volumetric advantage of about 31.56% over the older 18650 battery cells. Thus, in addition to having the 40% improvement in energy density at the same volume... They gain another 31.56% beyond that per battery cell. Thus, fewer battery cells are needed to reach a given volume and capacity within an array, lowering cost, and hopefully weight as well.
I don't think Tesla will make a 100 kWh Model 3 as as soon as 2017. Not because they can't, because it's quite doable, but because the price will be relatively high with not much additional utility.
Assuming the base Model 3 has a 55 kWh battery and goes 220 miles, an 80 kWh Model 3 would likely go around 310 miles, while a 100 kWh Model 3 would go maybe 375 miles. And assuming a 250 USD/kWh pack retail cost, the 55 kWh Model 3 would be 35,000 USD, the 80 kWh Model 3 would be 41,250 USD, and the 100 kWh Model 3 would be 46,250 USD. I don't think many customers would be willing to pay the extra 5k USD to go from 310 miles of range to 375 miles. At this point the range is good enough.
Additionally, allowing as big a spread as 55-100 kWh means the battery pack volume and battery pack structure in the base Model 3 is almost twice as big as needed. This adds cost and complexity to the base model, to allow for the high end 100 kWh battery. Tesla will probably sell very many cars that are fairly close to base configuration, and they really need to squeeze out all possible profit margin.
Instead of a 100 kWh pack for the Model 3 in 2017, I think that a 120 kWh pack for the S/X is likely. We should see 21-70 based packs for the S and X in 2017. For those who need range in the 350-400 mile area, they will need to go up a class.
Assuming the base Model 3 has a 55 kWh battery and goes 220 miles, an 80 kWh Model 3 would likely go around 310 miles, while a 100 kWh Model 3 would go maybe 375 miles. And assuming a 250 USD/kWh pack retail cost, the 55 kWh Model 3 would be 35,000 USD, the 80 kWh Model 3 would be 41,250 USD, and the 100 kWh Model 3 would be 46,250 USD. I don't think many customers would be willing to pay the extra 5k USD to go from 310 miles of range to 375 miles. At this point the range is good enough.
Additionally, allowing as big a spread as 55-100 kWh means the battery pack volume and battery pack structure in the base Model 3 is almost twice as big as needed. This adds cost and complexity to the base model, to allow for the high end 100 kWh battery. Tesla will probably sell very many cars that are fairly close to base configuration, and they really need to squeeze out all possible profit margin.
Instead of a 100 kWh pack for the Model 3 in 2017, I think that a 120 kWh pack for the S/X is likely. We should see 21-70 based packs for the S and X in 2017. For those who need range in the 350-400 mile area, they will need to go up a class.
I personally don't consider buying a gasoline or diesel car "going up a class"
What I mean is that I don't think there is option of segregating the range between the models. That's not how you make electric cars main stream.
What use case do you have where 310 miles range isn't enough?I personally don't consider buying a gasoline or diesel car "going up a class"
What I mean is that I don't think there is option of segregating the range between the models. That's not how you make electric cars main stream.
Some range differensiation between models is fine, IMHO. It's always a matter of weighing different properties of a car up against each other. Designing an electric car for longer range will necessarily increase the price of the car. And what's more important for the Model 3 - hitting the price target of 35k USD, or offering 400 miles range instead of "merely" 300 miles range?
The topic is "How many can they squeze into". This is purely geometrical question. The answer is bound by battery pack dimensions, cell overhead and chemistry density.
How many kWh will they offer is bound by completely different set of constraints: cell price, car profit, cell availability, car demand, production ramp, etc.
Primary constraint is price and battery availability. So, I don't expect +100kWh battery because those cells would suffice for two base M3.
How many kWh will they offer is bound by completely different set of constraints: cell price, car profit, cell availability, car demand, production ramp, etc.
Primary constraint is price and battery availability. So, I don't expect +100kWh battery because those cells would suffice for two base M3.
Looking only at the geometric consideration, there should be room for around four cubic meters of battery packs in the Model 3. At around 200 Wh/liter, that means there's room for around 800 kWh of batteries. The range should be something like 2000 miles.
(Basically, Tesla can design the Model 3 for any range they desire.)
(Basically, Tesla can design the Model 3 for any range they desire.)
andrerodpt
Member
Guys, a question: does it make sense the Model 3 to have a a greater estimated EPA than the flagship models? Even if Tesla can do it, should they do it?
My guess is that the Model S (and X) will always have the top of the line tech, giving them a clear edge for Model 3 (and Y).
No way the Model 3 will ship with better batteries while the MS and MX use old tech.
My guess is that the Model S (and X) will always have the top of the line tech, giving them a clear edge for Model 3 (and Y).
No way the Model 3 will ship with better batteries while the MS and MX use old tech.
They don't have the problem, you are watching from a wrong prospective. All of what you can do on a model 3, you can do on a model S, so if the model 3 has a new better battery pack, then the S could also have a new battery pack, thus solving your dilemma.
Maybe the 3 could use a "less kwh" battery pack for the same range, but the S has more space for battery, so overall the S can potential do more miles
Maybe the 3 could use a "less kwh" battery pack for the same range, but the S has more space for battery, so overall the S can potential do more miles
andrerodpt
Member
Yes. But that "more space" (and considering Motor Trend the 3 is 90% the S), would compensate for the 3 being less heavy?
Theoretically if you can squeeze a 100kWh battery in the S, you can get a 90kWh in the M3. What would be the EPA for both?
andrerodpt
Member
I respectfully disagree with that. I think the MS will always be the best in all variables except price. I think Elon said so already.
I think Tesla will produce packs for the Model S and and Model X using the new 21-70s in the near future. But Tesla does also have a lot of 18650-cells coming in from from Panasonic's factories in Japan. And they are probably contractually obligated to take delivery of these cells for some time, as a condition for Panasonics cooperation on the Gigafactory. At some point the factories in Japan will likely switch over to 21-70s, but until then the 18650-cells must be used somewhere. And this somewhere isn't the Tesla energy products or the Model 3.
I think the most likely solution is that Tesla will continue to sell the 75/90 kWh 18650-based packs for some time, while also introducing a 120 kWh 21-70-based pack for an even longer range option.
I would say they'll get the same EPA or something very similar, if the model 3 has 3% more mile range i would think that this isn't a great deal.
Said that, considering that the roadster is way behind the model S in many aspect i would say that for tesla it isn't this "big priority"
Similar threads
