Pretty cool, but it certainly seems to imply that 100kwh packs won't be available for the 3, at least in its first iteration. The pack is clearly extremely expensive with the all new cooling systems.
-
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
Pretty cool, but it certainly seems to imply that 100kwh packs won't be available for the 3, at least in its first iteration. The pack is clearly extremely expensive with the all new cooling systems.
Could it be they change the layout to add more cells, or to allow a higher charge rate per cell, as would pretty potentially confirm the SA article discussed earlier?
I'm not convinced it's expensive TO TESLA. Certainly not $10k minus margin more.
They seem to be establishing how super special it is to reach 100kWh more than show the world how great BEV's are.
Putting a high price on the last few kWh's to be squeezed from a Model S/X might set us up to pay hefty premiums on longer range Model 3's, while merely matching the promised 215 mile from a small pack would be considered a positive outcome. A more reasonable premium for the fully loaded Model 3 could then make a huge amount of customers "go long". While more reservations come in (higher deposit this time to get a good delivery date).
If Tesla is so on-schedule with the new cells to be made in the GF, it makes sense to create a market for the long range models. We can get used to the triple digit, and simply demand it. Same with 315 miles (crucially, 507km for 95% of the world population).
Tesla know they have an edge with the GF and the cells it will make. Now they can make the market demand certain range numbers which are super expensive for others to achieve. Mercedes will soon announce their luxury electric sedan. It will look pathetic at 400km of so of range (as an example).
This 100kWh is priced way high. The similar range Model 3 on which they make a good margin will seem like a steal. And nothing else will suffice. I can see them preparing videos of a Model 3 doing LA to SF on a single charge, comfortably. 384 miles of so. Seems doable if the improve 2170 cells are allowed to reach 100kWh within the Model 3 pack size constraints. 223Wh/mi, 145Wh/km. Taking 90% = 90kWh usable. Some stunt like that. The Model 3 might do the whole trip on AP by then, averaging 70mph or so. Occupants begging for a pitstop.
Crazy thought. I'd program AP to try and draft big trucks if the requested speed more or less matched.
I'm not convinced it's expensive TO TESLA. Certainly not $10k minus margin more.
They seem to be establishing how super special it is to reach 100kWh more than show the world how great BEV's are.
Putting a high price on the last few kWh's to be squeezed from a Model S/X might set us up to pay hefty premiums on longer range Model 3's, while merely matching the promised 215 mile from a small pack would be considered a positive outcome. A more reasonable premium for the fully loaded Model 3 could then make a huge amount of customers "go long". While more reservations come in (higher deposit this time to get a good delivery date).
If Tesla is so on-schedule with the new cells to be made in the GF, it makes sense to create a market for the long range models. We can get used to the triple digit, and simply demand it. Same with 315 miles (crucially, 507km for 95% of the world population).
Tesla know they have an edge with the GF and the cells it will make. Now they can make the market demand certain range numbers which are super expensive for others to achieve. Mercedes will soon announce their luxury electric sedan. It will look pathetic at 400km of so of range (as an example).
This 100kWh is priced way high. The similar range Model 3 on which they make a good margin will seem like a steal. And nothing else will suffice. I can see them preparing videos of a Model 3 doing LA to SF on a single charge, comfortably. 384 miles of so. Seems doable if the improve 2170 cells are allowed to reach 100kWh within the Model 3 pack size constraints. 223Wh/mi, 145Wh/km. Taking 90% = 90kWh usable. Some stunt like that. The Model 3 might do the whole trip on AP by then, averaging 70mph or so. Occupants begging for a pitstop.
Crazy thought. I'd program AP to try and draft big trucks if the requested speed more or less matched.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
The pack is $20,000 or $200/kWh (we know these cost tesla below $190 / kWh) and these are likely 18650 cells still so you cannot say anything about the Model 3 yet because battery pack prices are supposed to go down to near $100/kWh. Even at $120/kWh you'd be looking at $12,000 for the upgrade.
If they get expensive packs for free by offering a slightly better one for sale as cost, I can see Tesla wanting to go into the recycling business!
Where was this $190/kWh confirmed please? Is this an 18650 figure, for complete packs, or just the cells?
Aaaandd less than 24 hours later Tesla announce a 10% pack upgrade for the year:
Tesla claims ‘Quickest Production Car in the World’ title with new 100 kWh battery pack: 0-60 in 2.5s & 315 mile range
Expect to see the same increase again in roughly a year - perhaps/maybe/possibly we will see the flagship 110kW packs on the S/X being the very first vehicle to get the new format of cells - presuming of course the production capacity is available at the time. This deviates a little from the companies stated plans yet would be logical as Elon has acknowledged the P100 pack more or less hits the theoretical limit of density for the S/X pack form factor, viz any packs we see that are bigger will be requiring a new cell type or chemistry.
Can Tesla seriously restrain themselves from another round of pack upgrades and performance boosts to the S & X line before M3 release? Probably not
I honestly think the 110kWh will happen, with the present day chemistry, the moment 21-70 cells will be used for S/X packs.
Another year on though, you'd think it's time for a chemistry upgrade. Did the 90 even count as such, 3 years after 85 was introduced?
Seems with 4 years after this 85's inception, at most 5kWh was gained in chemistry if indeed this 90>100 upgraded is all about fitting more cells thanks to complicated cooling and/or circuitry.
Another year on though, you'd think it's time for a chemistry upgrade. Did the 90 even count as such, 3 years after 85 was introduced?
Seems with 4 years after this 85's inception, at most 5kWh was gained in chemistry if indeed this 90>100 upgraded is all about fitting more cells thanks to complicated cooling and/or circuitry.
All that seems to be available on the site right now is the P100D-L, which makes sense for a while...they're going to make some cash up front on these....
But...in a few months, you should be able to get a Model S 100D. *non-performance/ludicrous...so, the "max range" option.
Using napkin math, and before you more-educated-on-such-matters-types get too crazy, I AM aware that these calculations aren't always linear.........
but the range difference between the P90D-L and the 90D is ~5.839%......
moving those numbers over to the P100D-L.....one can assume that the EPA range for the 100D SHOULD be roughly 333 miles on a single charge.
That's pretty damn impressive....and makes me even more hopeful for the battery architecture and chemistry improvements, combined with the vehicles aeros and mass differences with the Model S.....
I'd love to see the max range Model 3 somewhere in that ballpark!
But...in a few months, you should be able to get a Model S 100D. *non-performance/ludicrous...so, the "max range" option.
Using napkin math, and before you more-educated-on-such-matters-types get too crazy, I AM aware that these calculations aren't always linear.........
but the range difference between the P90D-L and the 90D is ~5.839%......
moving those numbers over to the P100D-L.....one can assume that the EPA range for the 100D SHOULD be roughly 333 miles on a single charge.
That's pretty damn impressive....and makes me even more hopeful for the battery architecture and chemistry improvements, combined with the vehicles aeros and mass differences with the Model S.....
I'd love to see the max range Model 3 somewhere in that ballpark!
As you've noted there are two different roads to bigger packs - better price/packaging (cost, cooling architecture, packaging, cell size) and chemistry (cell capacity, C rate, voltage and so forth). Tesla can make the first change under their own initiative while chemistry changes are a flow on from Panasonic - so the increases won't arrive every 12 months like clockwork but will average out over time. As I understand it the chemistry of the cells has already been iterated at least once, likely several times, and these changes will continue and probably accelerate somewhat now Tesla engineers have their hands all over the Panasonic machines and are collaborating in the research on new cells in a big way.
Regardless, any new cell chemistry needs to be smashed thoroughly through its life cycle in the lab before it sees usage so obviously there is a slow and steady road to improvements inherent in the process. As a side note: Tesla's recent battery collaboration with a Canadian institution has yielded a lab-level likely looking chemistry improvement that will see the cells able to operate at a roughly 10% higher voltage (the mythical 10% improvement in the flesh
) so we may see that tech entering production if it passes through validation testing over the next few years.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
I do not agree. Many have said this though, even among Tesla Enthusiasts here. But JB Straubel often speaks of what he has observed 'in the lab' and that suggests to me he is constantly doing research and verification studies. Whether he is designing external systems for power electronics and battery management systems or literally testing every conceivable anode/cathode material and process available and the full extent of materials to be used between them, or just using off-the-shelf stuff is something we may never know for certain. I prefer to believe that a man who admits that he loves batteries is getting into the muck up to his armpits at the workbench on a daily basis.
I'm very curious to find out how they've packed in the additional cells in the P100D. We're probably talking about an additional 800-1000 cells, which is a lot in an already compact design.
The most important question is if the new pack architecture is transferable to the Model 3, and there's really no way of knowing without opening one of the new packs up. It's entirely possible the new architecture utilizes the extra 5 mm of space above/below the cells for cooling. But that this space will be absorbed by the 21-70 cells, so you need the old cooling solution for the 21-70 based packs. If so, going to the 21-70 format may yield no additional space for cells. And a 21-70 based Model S/X pack may only get a <5% capacity increase.
The most important question is if the new pack architecture is transferable to the Model 3, and there's really no way of knowing without opening one of the new packs up. It's entirely possible the new architecture utilizes the extra 5 mm of space above/below the cells for cooling. But that this space will be absorbed by the 21-70 cells, so you need the old cooling solution for the 21-70 based packs. If so, going to the 21-70 format may yield no additional space for cells. And a 21-70 based Model S/X pack may only get a <5% capacity increase.
Also, as there was no improvement due to chemistry, that may increase the likelihood that we'll see a capacity increase due to chemistry next year. Since 2012, we've had a single ~6% increase due to chemistry. That's an average of 1.5% per year. Not extremely good.
A 5% increase in 2017 would increase this to 2.2% per year, at least.
A 5% increase in 2017 would increase this to 2.2% per year, at least.
The answer is yes, JB mentioned that the changes to the architecture will accomodate the new 2170 cell.
Interesting re: your figures supplied regarding chemistry improvements being around 1.5% pa. I'm not privvy to the data on the evolution of Tesla's cell but the rate of improvement does seem slow - it may be that they move more slowly than the field in general or that the 8 - 9% figure Elon often quotes is regarding other metrics beside pure storage density of the cell?
I think seeing an improvement next year is almost a certainty. Elon said yesterday that they have likely maxed out energy density in the current form factor of the pack. So the 100kWH is likely as much as we'll see until the Gigafactory comes online.
Of course, now that we've heard anecdotes that they will be able to fit more energy into less space, it will be quite interesting to see what the new and improved pack can fit on the Model S/X chassis. >120kWH+? If the pack cost gets low enough, a 400 mile range BEV becomes the tipping point Tesla is looking for vs. ICE vehicles.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
You might have actually missed some recent Tesla hires (like Jeff Dahn) and other partnerships.
Meet Tesla’s new weapon, a battery scientist
and a year later
Lithium-Ion Battery Expert Jeff Dahn About To Start At Tesla Motors
LBusDoor90
Member
...and just 7 days ago:
Tesla’s battery research partner shows potential new path for longer EV range and durability
Tesla’s battery research partner shows potential new path for longer EV range and durability
NukePower
Member
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.
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.
Similar threads
