Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?

[X Fan]

Technology always moves forward......batteries will improve

 

[transpondster]

yes, but my base case scenario that 2170 are simply bigger cells with almost identical chemistry to current 18650 and in such case 55 kWh pack should be able to charge at ~60-65kW level before taper which would be 30% faster than Bolt

 

[SageBrush]

and I reduced charge rate by 10% compared to S/X 75 because of surface/volume difference (I didn't try to calculate precisely, but should be close)

The volume/SA increases by ~ 17% in the larger cell if my arithmetic stands the test of time

 

[SpiceWare]

In Chicago it takes $1.72 to fill up a P90D. Who would want to sit around a SC for $1.72 of electricity in a $80k+ car?

Your electricity's less than $0.02 per kWh?

Looking at Tesla's Charging page they estimate it would cost me around $11.50 to fully charge a Model S for 300 miles.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Your electricity's less than $0.02 per kWh?

Looking at Tesla's Charging page they estimate it would cost me around $11.50 to fully charge a Model S for 300 miles.

Its less than that at night.

 

[SageBrush]

yes, but my base case scenario that 2170 are simply bigger cells with almost identical chemistry to current 18650 and in such case 55 kWh pack should be able to charge at ~60-65kW level before taper which would be 30% faster than Bolt

I thought the most recent, new 1860 in the Model S peak charges at 1.2C
All else staying the same, that might imply the Model 3 peak charges at 1.2 * 0.833 = 1C

Then a 55 kWh pack might reach 55 kW
the Bolt reaches 45 kW IIRC
So the Model 3 would have a 55/45 = 22% advantage in peak charging speed.

I'll hope for more !
For my personal use I'll be happy with an average throughput of 60 kW until 80% charge and anything faster will be a treat.

 

[JeffK]

yes, but my base case scenario that 2170 are simply bigger cells with almost identical chemistry to current 18650 and in such case 55 kWh pack should be able to charge at ~60-65kW level before taper which would be 30% faster than Bolt

Glad we know they are different chemistries based on comments by JB and Elon saying so.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I thought the most recent, new 1860 in the Model S peak charges at 1.2C
All else staying the same, that might imply the Model 3 peak charges at 1.2 * 0.833 = 1C

Then a 55 kWh pack might reach 55 kW
the Bolt reaches 45 kW IIRC
So the Model 3 would have a 55/45 = 22% advantage in peak charging speed.

I'll hope for more !
For my personal use I'll be happy with an average throughput of 60 kW until 80% charge and anything faster will be a treat.

The manual says 90 miles in 30 minutes at an 80kW+ CCS charger.
But charger rating is VA. Some 50kW chargers are 500V x 100A. So if GM is saying that defensively, than 80kW+ suggests 160A charging is the max, which for a 360V pack would give a theoretical maximum of 57.6kW.

Whatever it is, at least at optimal SoC and temperature, it's currently limited by the chargers themselves. The VW money at least should see 200A+ chargers installed, even if there are new CCS charger installations going in with limited current.

Of course, what _really_ matters for charging is mph. For the Model 3 we need to know the curve and the vehicle efficiency.

 

[SpiceWare]

Its less than that at night.

Aha - thanks for clarifying.

I'll have to review rate plans when my contract expires next June. Something like TXU's Free Nights and Solar Days might be nice as it'd be $0.00 to fill up; though, it might not be better overall as the daytime rate is higher and I work from home.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Aha - thanks for clarifying.

I'll have to review rate plans when my contract expires next June. Something like TXU's Free Nights and Solar Days might be nice as it'd be $0.00 to fill up; though, it might not be better overall as the daytime rate is higher and I work from home.

You have a power contract?

I'm sure you might be aware of this, but you can set a timer in your Tesla to start charging at a specific time.

 

[SpiceWare]

You have a power contract?

Yes, cheaper than going month-to-month. It's 0.075 per kWh, ending up with an average of 0.115 once the other fees are factored in. I didn't go for the cheapest rate around as I've opted for a 100% wind plan to support the expansion of green energy.

I'm sure you might be aware of this, but you can set a timer in your Tesla to start charging at a specific time.

Yes, but living in the Houston metro which means my biggest electrical expense is AC during the day. When I worked at an office I'd kick the AC up during the day, but now that I work from home it needs to be comfortable enough for me to work so opting for free nights but more expensive power during the day may not be a good idea (especially since working from home means I don't put as many miles on the car as I used to). Additionally, this is my desk, so I keep the AC turned down a little lower than I used to:

 

[Mikeysb]

I think there is a very good chance the base Model 3 has a lower EPA range than a Bolt. But the highway range will be higher.
The EPA range uses a combination of the city and highway tests and favors the city tests. The AC induction motor is more efficient than the PMAC at cruising around at steady speeds and much less efficient during acceleration and deceleration. So city tests favor the PMAC motors like those in pretty much every other EV, but highway cruising goes to the Tesla. Add in the effects of aerodynamics, and I think the Model 3 will have an easier time making Supercharger jumps when range really matters. But I think there is a very good chance the Bolt will carry the promotional headline figure.

Has anyone done the math when it's 94 degrees out and air conditioner is cranking like today or when it's 15 or 20 degrees like we sometimes gets in NJ and heater is on full blast. I have not seen anything written about this

 

[Guy V]

The only logical reason to price it that way for Model 3 would be greed as it exceeds gross margins. The goal is to make this car affordable to the masses. A range near 300 mi will be highly desirable. They can either compete now, or drop the price significantly in two years as there will be competition and owners will be angry. They can still make their desired profit margins at $200 / kWh unless they are losing their butts on the car itself which is doubtful.

There's nothing wrong with make a base version that's affordable to the masses and ones with highly desirable features that greatly improve profit margins. I see no reason to call that greed.

 

[SageBrush]

Your electricity's less than $0.02 per kWh?

Alas, no
More like 2.5 cents a kWh

 

[JeffK]

There's nothing wrong with make a base version that's affordable to the masses and ones with highly desirable features that greatly improve profit margins. I see no reason to call that greed.

Two of the greatest hindrances to the adoption of EVs and sustainable transport in general are cost and range. Costs must decrease and range must increase.
If they price the one model that has range comparable to many ICEs outside of the target market then that is not really the quickest way to achieve their mission statement of accelerating the the world's transition to sustainable transport.

 

[Brando]

Seems a good time to review Tesla reasons for electric motor choices.
Induction Versus DC Brushless Motors

reminder; even electric motors in vehicles evolve
The first Roadsters "had/required" two forward gears not any more. Inverter hardware improved was part of the reason.

 

[JeffK]

The first Roadsters "had/required" two forward gears not any more.

This is because they kept breaking... They simply took out the second gear and thus limited top speed. It had nothing to do with the inverter. Going to a single speed gearbox was never the desired outcome. It was just simpler then having it break.

Rimac found a way of doing this correctly. I'd imagine the next roadster will too.

 

[Brando]

The old 18650 cell format was much shorter and skinnier than the Model 3 2170 cells. While Elon said these 2170 cells have the highest energy density they have only been put into a single known car at this point.

July 28, 2017 actually will be the first car, right?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Two of the greatest hindrances to the adoption of EVs and sustainable transport in general are cost and range. Costs must decrease and range must increase.
If they price the one model that has range comparable to many ICEs outside of the target market then that is not really the quickest way to achieve their mission statement of accelerating the the world's transition to sustainable transport.

They also have to make the company profitable and survive. As for the target market, it's very clear it's the BMW 3 series and Audi A4. This ranges from $33k up to $90k for a loaded M3. Tesla was never targeting the econobox market. They are leaving that for the other automakers.

Also, I'm not seeing how having more expensive higher end options conflict with the mission. The people who can't afford it can buy the base model.

 

[JeffK]

They also have to make the company profitable and survive. As for the target market, it's very clear it's the BMW 3 series and Audi A4. This ranges from $33k up to $90k for a loaded M3.

Also, I'm not seeing how having more expensive higher end options conflict with the mission. The people who can't afford it can buy the base model.

The base model still has a limited range compared to typical ICEs. Profitability is still achieved at the same or even slightly increased margins... 30% say or even 40% but why must it be several hundred percent like it is now with Model S?