How will Tesla be profitable selling an electric 7-series for $57k?

[William3]

You're right, I should have said "extra torque". We don't know for sure that it will have more HP.

I can't recall exactly how I came across the information that the AWD version = Sport version. I heard about it a long time ago at the initial Model S party. I don't remember if it was from the talk that Elon was giving, or a private conversation with him or Zak, or one of the slides from a slide show about it. But it was made clear that the AWD will be from two motors and not a center differential. It was also made clear that the sport version will have two motors. As we now know (but didn't know back then) it would be really hard to add a 2nd motor that also drives the rear wheels (because of the way they are packaging the rear motor) and the battery pack prohibits having a drive shaft, so it seems to make sense why they would have the 2nd motor power the front wheels. Considering that the front wheels also have to steer, I don't know if they will be able to package the front motor the same way as the rear. To be clear, this is not new news and I have not heard anything about this since that day. They easily could have changed their minds since then, but that was the plan at the time -- and it is still the plan as far as I know.

 

[qwk]

You're right, I should have said "extra torque". We don't know for sure that it will have more HP.

I can't recall exactly how I came across the information that the AWD version = Sport version. I heard about it a long time ago at the initial Model S party. I don't remember if it was from the talk that Elon was giving, or a private conversation with him or Zak, or one of the slides from a slide show about it. But it was made clear that the AWD will be from two motors and not a center differential. It was also made clear that the sport version will have two motors. As we now know (but didn't know back then) it would be really hard to add a 2nd motor that also drives the rear wheels (because of the way they are packaging the rear motor) and the battery pack prohibits having a drive shaft, so it seems to make sense why they would have the 2nd motor power the front wheels. Considering that the front wheels also have to steer, I don't know if they will be able to package the front motor the same way as the rear. To be clear, this is not new news and I have not heard anything about this since that day. They easily could have changed their minds since then, but that was the plan at the time -- and it is still the plan as far as I know.

Some of this makes sense, BUT the Sport version will not necessarily have to be AWD, as power is still limited by the safe discharge rate of the battery pack. So having an extra motor up front will not give you more power unless you have a big enough battery pack.

 

[shark2k]

Something was mentioned in the original press releases....

Thanks TEG, I was kind of hoping you would do your Googlefu and find something :biggrin:.

-Shark2k

 

[AnOutsider]

Speaking of Sport, last I (thought I) heard, the Sport (and 300 mile packs) weren't going to be available for launch. Who's waiting it out? I really want my S ASAP, but I'm also spoiled by AWD in my Audis and I'd hate to miss the extra oomph of the Sport version (not to mention any cabin goodies) by 6 months or so.

 

[vfx]

Speaking of Sport, last I (thought I) heard, the Sport (and 300 mile packs) weren't going to be available for launch. Who's waiting it out? I really want my S ASAP, but I'm also spoiled by AWD in my Audis and I'd hate to miss the extra oomph of the Sport version (not to mention any cabin goodies) by 6 months or so.

I wonder if you can get an upgrade...

 

[jkirkebo]

Some of this makes sense, BUT the Sport version will not necessarily have to be AWD, as power is still limited by the safe discharge rate of the battery pack. So having an extra motor up front will not give you more power unless you have a big enough battery pack.

This can be remedied by only selling AWD cars with the 300-mile pack. Also the front motor does not need to be as powerful as the rear one, if the rear one is 225kW the front one would be fine at maybe 150kW, for a total of 375kW (502hp). 375kW from the 300-mile pack would be easier on the battery than 225kW from the 160-mile pack.

This could also be why AWD is not available the forst model year, since the 300-mile pack will not be either.

 

[AnOutsider]

I wonder if you can get an upgrade...

WIth some features maybe, but if it's a whole new motor, I'm guessing retrofitting may not be a priority for them.

 

[ljbad4life]

Speaking of Sport, last I (thought I) heard, the Sport (and 300 mile packs) weren't going to be available for launch. Who's waiting it out? I really want my S ASAP, but I'm also spoiled by AWD in my Audis and I'd hate to miss the extra oomph of the Sport version (not to mention any cabin goodies) by 6 months or so.

I'm waiting on the 300 mile pack and awd. The awd isn't a big thing for me anymore after reading how the roadster handles in snow, it's not a major concern anymore. I guess I could do with a 230 mile pack, but I want some of the improvements that will happen after the initial release.

 

[qwk]

This can be remedied by only selling AWD cars with the 300-mile pack. Also the front motor does not need to be as powerful as the rear one, if the rear one is 225kW the front one would be fine at maybe 150kW, for a total of 375kW (502hp). 375kW from the 300-mile pack would be easier on the battery than 225kW from the 160-mile pack.

This could also be why AWD is not available the forst model year, since the 300-mile pack will not be either.

If I were to guess, I would bet that it would be a few years until the AWD will be available, especially if they plan on two motors.

Here is why. The size of the motor on the Model S appears to be quite a bit larger than the roadster motor. It could very well be around 350kw. This means that Tesla could up the power for the Sport along with using a bigger battery pack without needing a second motor. This would definately take less engineering and be more profitable along with quicker implementation.

The AWD version will probably be quite a bit more expensive if they use a second motor because of the extra battery cost plus the extra motor cost. AFAIK, Tesla only has the 185kw roadster motor, the ??kw model S motor and supposedly they are working on a third motor for the Rav4 EV.

 

[strider]

Speaking of Sport, last I (thought I) heard, the Sport (and 300 mile packs) weren't going to be available for launch. Who's waiting it out? I really want my S ASAP, but I'm also spoiled by AWD in my Audis and I'd hate to miss the extra oomph of the Sport version (not to mention any cabin goodies) by 6 months or so.

But I though that was based on a 2011 FCS (First Customer Ship) date. Now that they've pushed it out into 2012 they may have the 300 mile pack at launch. But that's just a wild-assed guess on my part

 

[AnOutsider]

But I though that was based on a 2011 FCS (First Customer Ship) date. Now that they've pushed it out into 2012 they may have the 300 mile pack at launch. But that's just a wild-assed guess on my part

I'd say that's wildly optimistic

 

[theBike45]

The JP Morgan analyst claimed the breakeven point for the Model S to be 10K units. He also quoted a price range
I believe of $57 to $70K, the latter an upper bound. The 300 mile battery option, using his figures, would cost less
than $8 or $9K, the 240 mile pack option less than $5K.

 

[Eberhard]

i think $9K for 300miles is cheap. it also doubles the lifetime of the battery as well, compared to the 160 range version. Maybe the different chemistry is also more durable and offers more cycles according to panasonic data sheet.

 

[ljbad4life]

i think $9K for 300miles is cheap. it also doubles the lifetime of the battery as well, compared to the 160 range version. Maybe the different chemistry is also more durable and offers more cycles according to panasonic data sheet.

I guess all the reports of Tesla having the cheapest cost per Kwh is true. Does anyone know how much the 160 mile cost? My guess is about 10-15k. There is no way that a 300 mile pack is 9k, it's kind of a misnomer. The 300 mile pack would have a 9k premium over the 160 mile pack. I could of course be wrong...

 

[TEG]

Those battery cost projections are speculative at this point.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Here's a semi-conservative estimate (I say semi because the more dense cells for the 300 mile pack likely costs more per kWh, although this is likely balanced out by the current cell prices likely being cheaper than the numbers we have from 2009). We know the base Model S will be 42kWh for 160 miles. Replacement cost for the Roadster is $30k for 53kWh as of beginning of 2009 (two years ago). Works out to a $23.8k replacement cost for the base Model S pack and $44.6k replacement cost for the 300 mile pack (79kWh based on 160mi/42kWh). That's an additional cost of $20.8k, so William3's estimate is pretty close. Of course, these are cost to consumer, so the numbers shouldn't be used for estimating the cost to Tesla in terms of manufacturing the Model S.

 

[Eberhard]

Date & Time: 2011-01-20 12:12:46
Sender: Hongkong yuntong commercial Co., Ltd., David Wang
Subject: 18650 Lithium-ion Battery --0.2usd/pc

seen ab
I asked on a B2B Platform for the quotation of 100.000 pcs of 18650 cells - the result was as low as 20cent for each. but i assume capacity is only 1600mAh. The request was done for a project for peak-shaping in a smart-grid. We assumed, that lead-acid would be cheapest but is rated around 100€ per kWh. But it looks like, that the 18650 are half-price, but also half of the expected cycles. maybe LiPePo seems even better because of 3000-5000 possible cycles. For our stationary application, energy-density is not important, but for mobile use it does. Based on this offer, the value of Tesla cells (6831 pcs) may less then 5000$, without the package.

 

[TEG]

I asked on a B2B Platform for the quotation of 100.000 pcs of 18650 cells - the result was as low as 20cent for each. but i assume capacity is only 1600mAh...

At that price, they may be of poor quality with high DOA and failure rates.

 

[Eberhard]

I just stated, who cheap they can be produced. With increasing quality, it does not mean, the price have go up. For me true price comes from the formula "price / (capacity * #cycles)". If #cycles is ten times better, then price can be 10 times higher too