Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
#221
"I want to emphasize even if you buy no options at all this will still be an amazing car, you will not be able to buy a better car for $35000 dollars or even close even if you get no options." -Elon Musk 3/31/16

The numbers may make it most likely it will be a 55kwh battery pack, but they need to also take into account current (Bolt) and future competitors. They also need to hit a number big enough to minimize range anxiety since they aren't going after early adopters anymore, and I'm not sure 218 miles is going to do it.

We "don't know what we don't know", but fortunately we will in less than two weeks! Still like your data and love your estimator, even if I don't share your confidence in the tea leaves.
 
#222
OK .... off topic, except it is about the title of the thread.

Every day I review the new post and this one catches my attention every time.
I am very uncomfortable with insinuating that EM may have lied. Politicians make the accusation all the time and I am just as uncomfortable in that context.

Maybe because my background is law-enforcement .... but to accuse someone of "lying" can have criminal connotations (given certain circumstances).
Personally, I favor a softer tone ..... was something said that was subsequently found to be in overstated following further analysis?

I'm just venting ..... pay no attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgpcolorado, DR61, Garlan Garner and 1 other person
#223
On the batching, first thought was that 2x25 = 50 and 3x25 = 75, or 4x15=60 and 5x15=75. However, the rounding makes it completely different. It could be 4x14 = 56 -> 55 and 5x14 = 70 -> 70 or 75. Too many options to guess with the rounding there mixing it up, so that doesn't really help.
 
#224
Until now I've always assumed I'm 99% sure to buy the bigger battery pack. But if they have the design options as bundles, it actually changes the game. Say for example the base is 35k, but the only way to get bigger pack would also include options:

75kWh: $10k
20" wheels: $3000
Special paint: $2000
Sunroof: $1500
Vegan seats: $2000
Alcantara interior: $1500

So basically I'd be paying $10k for the option I want, and another $10k for the options I don't want, essentially making the battery upgrade costing me $20k. (numbers totally just guessing, but you get the idea).

In that case it'd be hard choice.
 
#228
Hi. I created polls for more topics discussed in this thread. @tpatana, I think Poll #4 might interest you.

Poll 1 Will base model M3 beat the Chevy Bolt's 238 mile EPA range?
Poll 2 What will be the smallest Model 3 battery size?
Poll 3 What will be the EPA rated range of the longest range Model 3?
Poll 4 What will be the price difference per kWh between the largest and smallest Model 3 battery?

Poll #1 already existed. It was created by somebody else but I will use the results as part of the larger competition.
 
#230
shrspeedblade said:
"I want to emphasize even if you buy no options at all this will still be an amazing car, you will not be able to buy a better car for $35000 dollars or even close even if you get no options." -Elon Musk 3/31/16

The numbers may make it most likely it will be a 55kwh battery pack, but they need to also take into account current (Bolt) and future competitors. They also need to hit a number big enough to minimize range anxiety since they aren't going after early adopters anymore, and I'm not sure 218 miles is going to do it.

We "don't know what we don't know", but fortunately we will in less than two weeks! Still like your data and love your estimator, even if I don't share your confidence in the tea leaves.
Click to expand...
People who took the day off to reserve Model 3 may not consider Bolt too quickly, just for 7-8kWh more in a similarly priced lunchbox. Once all reservations are supplied against, there will be growing competition for Model 3, and with more factories up and running, they may want to address their competitive position. Tesla knows how many reservation it lost for various reason, I'm sure suveys are being run. The James Murdoch situation may cost more image and sales than 20 miles of free extra range could fix.
 
#231
scaesare said:
Do you have a source for this?
Click to expand...
Can't find the link. I read an article or document mentioning 10C rating and it being faster.
In case of P100DL+, some 5.7C is being pulled from the cells. Very, very shortly.
Of course how the new cchemistry might affect charging, even with a 10C discharge confirmation, is hard to estimate, at least for me. All I've seen is that 3 charging, ang getting 70.6kW after 7.45 minutes around 30% SOC. Not super little, and also not a lot.

I don't expect the base model to have anything in the way of faster than Model S charging. But it could be a software upgrade, separate of tied into a P package. It's nice to have, and 2 years from now it may be a must have to sell cars, CCS being rolled out and competition likely using faster cells than Tesla. such as Hyundai already does.

S and X are used to fill the supply agreement with Panasonic for 18650's. They have some incurred fixed costs to earn back.
Don't gamble on them remaining on heavier costlier 18650's any longer than is convenient, though. A new 2170 pack would put a huge dent in the S/X production cost.

For the maximum capacity, I think we should look at the density per liter more than per kg. The 2170's will utilize 5mm more head space left unused by 18650's. So the 2170 efffectively has 7.7% more volume to play with on top of hoped for density improvements. A stuff 2170 S/X pack at 120-125kWh may weight about the same as the current 100 pack, though.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: transpondster
#232
@shrspeedblade When I think about "range anxiety", I think about road trips only. My daily commute is under 60 miles total and I park at home to charge. I'd think most drivers would be in same boat. Since road trips are planned, and chargers are available for most routes well within range, anxiety really isn't an issue. What you want is longer range and a shorter charging time as a matter of convenience during those (infrequent) road trips.
 
#233
Troy said:
Hi, @kbM3. Thanks. I like these kind questions.

1. Aero wheels: I don't know for sure. It might be already included because 0.21 is very aggressive. Elon said hopefully 0.21, not definitely, maybe he was hoping with the aero wheels they would get from maybe 0.22 to 0.21. Also, the Model S used to have Aero wheels. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't have thought of Aero wheels all along. On the other hand, the Model S version looked terrible and was discontinued even though they improved range. Therefore maybe initially they dismissed the Aero wheels idea but then when Elon saw the beautiful design, he said let's add these. I haven't seen the Model 3 Aero wheels until recently. Therefore it could be a recent idea. It's hard to tell, I will give this a 50/50.

2. I assumed 17% improvement in energy density at the cell level over current Model S cells. You can see the *0.83 here in cell K41 and below. I separated pack case weight from cell weight. I found data about pack weight here and an anecdotal number by WK057 here for pack case weight.

3. Batching options: This is like saying because you could potentially fix a problem this or that way, there is no harm in creating the problem. How about not creating the problem in the first place? Why would they make the 60 with 235-240 mi EPA at $35K the best Tesla deal ever only to try to desperately make it less impressive? That would be such a great car, 50% of Model 3 sales would be 60 kWh. Even if the 60 had no luxury options, how bad can it be? It will have optional Autopilot and Supercharging.
Click to expand...

I believe Tesla will have improved efficiency in the Model 3 drivetrain with respect to the Model S. I know I saw some talk with JB and he discussed how they started over from scratch designing either the motor or inverter (or both I can't remember) and how difficult this was because they already had one of the best with the Model S. This impressed me so much. It was very memorable.

Anyway, did you assume any drivetrain efficiency improvements vs. the Model S. I looked briefly through your spreadsheet and did not see it?

My personal guess was that the base Model 3 would be 50 kWh, because Elon talked a couple of years ago about a goal of 20% efficiency improvements because of 20% reduction in size.
 
#234
shrspeedblade said:
"I want to emphasize even if you buy no options at all this will still be an amazing car, you will not be able to buy a better car for $35000 dollars or even close even if you get no options." -Elon Musk 3/31/16

The numbers may make it most likely it will be a 55kwh battery pack, but they need to also take into account current (Bolt) and future competitors. They also need to hit a number big enough to minimize range anxiety since they aren't going after early adopters anymore, and I'm not sure 218 miles is going to do it.

We "don't know what we don't know", but fortunately we will in less than two weeks! Still like your data and love your estimator, even if I don't share your confidence in the tea leaves.
Click to expand...
On March 31, 2016, when Elon made that statement, he did not know how incredibly popular the car would be. I am wondering if he cut back on some of the standard options in order to get the car out earlier, or in order to increase the gross margin.

I don't think anyone could cogently argue that the Chevrolet bolt is superior to the model three even if it's city EPA range is greater for $2500 more.
 
#235
zenmaster said:
@shrspeedblade When I think about "range anxiety", I think about road trips only. My daily commute is under 60 miles total and I park at home to charge. I'd think most drivers would be in same boat. Since road trips are planned, and chargers are available for most routes well within range, anxiety really isn't an issue. What you want is longer range and a shorter charging time as a matter of convenience during those (infrequent) road trips.
Click to expand...
For $35K cars, much fewer people will be on your boat. Within kilometers of where I live, a modest metropole, no-one has a persona parking spot. For BEV dominance in my neighborhood, employers would have to step it up providing chargers. Knowing our tax office though, they'd be taxed twice or trice on that energy given away.
 
#236
Regarding drivetrain efficiency.
Should the gear ratio and motor size be optimized to get the most out of the EPA rating for a given kWh of cells put in the car, or optimize for typical highspeed driving?
Tesla has data on how their cars are driven, and can choose the ones with similar power and/or range to get as close as a prediction could be.
City driving range is an interesting thing. If you're a taxi driver.
Else, you're unlikely to need a recharge before the end of the day (home charging).
Low consumption on longer commutes and road trips seems like something drivers migh care more about?
Better city economy would affect a lot of people a little bit for the amount of energy they need to buy, but in terms of the city environment, it's a different equation to a fossil car that doesn't want to get too pollutive there.
To me, getting surprisingly good mileage on road trip would be where the efficiency does its work for me. I can comfortably skip chargers, reach a destination, save time and gain freedom in general. How much there is to be won though, without going to rare earth magnet motors...?
That said, if you compare cconsumption between current P- and non-P cars, you see the P is actually quite wasteful. Lots of electrons are used to heat up the atmosphere, even doing the same super chill EPA test. Which IMO is a bit of a fail. Get the performance without the external heater!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stirfelt
#240
Cloxxki said:
He didn't pin it, CNN and Facebook did (actually also not), and we can't even say "ironically". But I'm working from memory. Such a cringe to turn truthful independant reporting into some sort of news terrorism. It's there, if you believe the news...

Fake news - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Whoever started it doesn't matter. There's only one person you think of with that phrase. He took it and made it his own and gave it completely new meaning.

It's normalized usage makes it a tool of disinformation.

Simply stating "that is incorrect" would serve the same purpose but not legitimize and normalize him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Maximum battery charge level reduced - warranty about to expire
Replies
56
Views
4K
Model S
aerodyne
aerodyne
yessuz
How to check Original battery capacity on MIC 2022 Model 3?
Replies
28
Views
3K
The UK and Ireland
Adopado
Adopado
X
New here. Driving Efficiency Question
Replies
18
Views
2K
Model 3
afadeev
afadeev
jsugarsd
LFP vs NCA database of Wh/m for Model 3 SR+ and others possibly starting May 2024
Replies
19
Views
748
Model 3: Battery & Charging
3sr+buyer
3
F
Risk Manangnent of Buying AP1 Model S
Replies
23
Views
1K
Model S
David Harvey
David Harvey
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu