Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?

[BluestarE3]

Yeah...what about 0-60 times? I'm interested in that.

One reason why I think Tesla had to improve the Models 0-60 times in the Model S is because the Model 3 has the opportunity to surpass the Model S. If Tesla is hard set on the Model S having the best numbers available, then they will either have to:

1. Purposely make the Model 3 less quick and/or with a shorter charge range.
2. Purposely improve the model S to keep it surpassing the Model 3.
Or a combination of both.

Remember it was promised by Tesla/Elon a while ago that the base level Model 3's 0-60 times were going to come in less than 6 seconds. At the time that was mentioned up to a few weeks ago....the base model Model S was coming in at 5.6. They had to improve the Model S's baseline 0-60 times because of their own Model 3 promises.

Just as an FYI, they did announce, in the comparison chart, a more granular 0-60 time for the Model 3 of 5.6 seconds. So, you're right, they had to make that recent announcement of improved 0-60 times for the flagship models to maintain product line differentiation.

 

[Candleflame]

That a 75D Model S has the same 0-60 as a 75D Model 3 which is much lighter and leaner is completly rediculous.

 

[N5329K]

218 miles from a 60kW pack is a not-unreasonable range estimate at 275 watt hours per mile. That sounds in the ballpark for a lighter, more aero car than an S or an X, which see lifetime averages in the 325-360 plus w/hr range. To squeeze 300 miles from a 75kW pack requires dropping the per-mile consumption even lower to 250 w/hrs. Not sure that's reasonable, but would love to be proven wrong.
Still disappointing relative to the base Bolt.
Robin

 

[Garlan Garner]

That a 75D Model S has the same 0-60 as a 75D Model 3 which is much lighter and leaner is completly rediculous.

Its not the same anymore. All Model S and X's have improved 0-60 times. They are all under 5 seconds now.

Model S 75: 4.3 seconds down from 5.5 seconds
Model S 75D: 4.2 seconds down from 5.2 seconds
Model S 100D: 4.1 seconds down from 4.2 seconds

Model X 75D: 4.9 seconds down from 6.0 seconds
Model X 100D: 4.7 seconds down from 4.8 seconds.

 

[Troy]

218 miles from a 60kW pack ...

Did you mean to say 238 mi (Bolt's range)? 218 mi EPA for the Model 3 60 would be bad because even the Model S 60 has 210 mi EPA. These are my estimated EPA rated range numbers:

218 mi (351 km) for the Model 3 55
227 mi (366 km) for the Model 3 55D
281 mi (453 km) for the Model 3 P75D
284 mi (458 km) for the Model 3 75
297 mi (477 km) for the Model 3 75D

In case there is a 60:
236 mi (379 km) for the Model 3 60
245 mi (394 km) for the Model 3 60D

For the smaller battery, I can think of two scenarios:

Scenario 1: 55 kWh
The base model will be 55 kWh. This would make sense because my calculations show that the Model 3 55 would have 218 mi EPA rated range which is more than the promised 215 mi for $35,000. Tesla can't increase the base price because Elon keeps his promises and he promised 215+ mi for $35K and that's what he will deliver. 60 kWh base model for $35,000 is a terrible idea because of poor profit margins. 60 kWh base model for more than $35,000 is another terrible idea because they have promised $35,000 base price. However, it is possible to have a 60 kWh version which brings us to the next scenario.

Scenario 2: 55 & 60 kWh
The base model will have a 60 kWh pack that's software limited to 55 kWh. In this scenario, the starting price would still be $35,000 but people could software upgrade to 60 kWh for $3,000. After they have fulfilled all reservations, they would discontinue the software limited pack and continue with the 60 and 75 kWh packs. The Model 3 60 should have 236 mi EPA rated range which is almost the same as Bolt's range.

The problem with this scenario is that most people don't want to pay extra to software upgrade the battery. They would rather keep the software limited pack and charge to 100% every day. Therefore, this would be a bad idea in terms of profit margins. However, there is a solution for that. They could start with the 60 kWh and continue with 75 and leave the software limited pack (60 limited to 55) last. People who want a 55 would have to wait at least 6 months longer. Most people would just pay the $3,000 extra instead of waiting. This way they would keep their $35,000 base price promise and at the same time avoid profit margin issues.

I keep coming back to this second scenario because it is the kind of thing Tesla would do. They have done exactly that when they first launched the Model S. They promised $50,000 base price. To keep the promise, they released the Model S 40 at $49.900 but it was actually a software limited 60. Then they quickly discontinued the 40. The same thing could happen now.

I think Tesla's original plan was to start with 55 and 75 kWh versions. They had calculated that the Model 3 55 would have more than 215 miles EPA rated range so that's the number they announced during the reveal event. At the same time, they already had the digital designs for the 60/85 kWh packs ready. After the Bolt was released with 238 mi EPA, it must have been very tempting for Tesla to switch to Scenario 2. Either way, I think the 55 kWh version (software limited or not) won't be available for more than a year. They need to increase the base price and increasing the battery capacity would be the obvious way to do that.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

218 miles from a 60kW pack is a not-unreasonable range estimate at 275 watt hours per mile. That sounds in the ballpark for a lighter, more aero car than an S or an X, which see lifetime averages in the 325-360 plus w/hr range. To squeeze 300 miles from a 75kW pack requires dropping the per-mile consumption even lower to 250 w/hrs. Not sure that's reasonable, but would love to be proven wrong.
Still disappointing relative to the base Bolt.
Robin

Disappointing for bragging rights, or from a practical standpoint? A Model 3 with 170 miles range is more usable here in the Minnesota than a Bolt with 238.

 

[N5329K]

Troy, no, I meant the M3's range and the M3's pack. Which (as far as I know) might be rated 55 or 60 KW. Has it been announced as one or the other yet?
The 75 seems well-established as the likely upgrade. I assumed a 60 for the base Model 3. If it turns out to be 55 KW, the car consumes less juice to hit the goal of 218 miles: about 250 w/hr per mile. That seems on the low side of likely, but not impossible by any stretch. Especially highway miles.
Robin

 

[N5329K]

Disappointing for bragging rights, or from a practical standpoint? A Model 3 with 170 miles range is more usable here in the Minnesota than a Bolt with 238.

I know. But range anxiety is real for folks who don't have firsthand experience with EV's (and even some who do...watch James Cooke spend a lot of time on the road figuring his next charge stop). Those same people will compare range number to range number, and either choose the "bigger" pack (even if it's less useful) over the smaller one, or just go out and buy another oil burner.
Robin

 

[cdub]

The 75kWh Model 3 will have 300+ range for sure.

No. NOT for sure. People are setting themselves up for dissapointment sure.

And as to the question as to whether Elon is lying. No. He isn't. I can't point to another example of him lying.

Sure he can be overly optimistic in abilities in timetables but outright lying about something concrete like this. No.

 

[RayW]

Too much hypothesizing based upon no information

The title needs to be changed as nobody here has the capability of providing an answer, and I don’t see any reason for Musk to lie about maximum battery capacity of the Model 3.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I know. But range anxiety is real for folks who don't have firsthand experience with EV's (and even some who do...watch James Cooke spend a lot of time on the road figuring his next charge stop). Those same people will compare range number to range number, and either choose the "bigger" pack (even if it's less useful) over the smaller one, or just go out and buy another oil burner.
Robin

I feel that the market for both vehicles is generally more informed than the average. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure the Bolt is pulling many people from a pool that wouldn't be considered EV enthusiasts.

 

[Garlan Garner]

No. NOT for sure. People are setting themselves up for dissapointment sure.

And as to the question as to whether Elon is lying. No. He isn't. I can't point to another example of him lying.

Sure he can be overly optimistic in abilities in timetables but outright lying about something concrete like this. No.

Everyone,

Elon put caviats in his capacity statement that shouldn't be overlooked. Elon included language such as " At todays energy density of cells..... and capping the cost of the Model 3 base model to $35K.......and 200 mile usable range (whatever that means) ...... 20% smaller than the Model S......and that a 20% reduction in size of the pack does not always mean a 20% reduction in cost because things like battery cooling won't change from the Model S to the Model 3....etc. "

Its a lot less black and white that what folks here are presenting.
Please allow me to quote a Tesla engineer.

So...how do you get a product ( Model S battery ) and reduce the size of it by 20% ( to fit in the Model 3) resulting in a reduction in cost of 50% ( to fit into the price of a $35K car ) ....with customers wanting similar range.........AND STILL MAKE A PROFIT?

If the battery cooling system is the same cost. Same radiator, Same coolant, Same pump, Same hoses, etc
The anti penetration skid plate is the same cost.
The batteries cables and length etc. will be the same costs.
While at the same time being 20% smaller physical footprint.....would essentially result in a more expensive battery "net".
The repair costs per repair center is the same no matter if its one cell or the whole pack.
Storing replacement packs are the same cost and installing them costs the same in the salaries of the technicians.

You can't have a $100K car battery pack be less expensive than a $35K car battery pack. So what did tesla do concerning innovation?

What reduces the cost the most of the Model 3 battery is the increase of cell density of the new 2170 cells. It doesn't cost any different to put in a 2170 cell as opposed to an 18650 cell to robots.
so Teslas robots won't have to install as many cells per pack... thereby saving time ( time is always a cost factor) - intangible as it may be.
Testing time is reduced ( lower count of cells to test ).
Engineering costs are eliminated. Its already pretty much engineered as a "rinse and repeat" of the Model S.
New ideas on design innovation and less storage go-time has also contributed to the cause.

As we all know, the battery pack is the most expensive part of ANY EV.

The bolt is touting big range, however if you really delve into the details...... its not nearly as big as people think. Take a fully charged bolt up a hill for 5 miles. Take a fully charged Model S up a hill for 5 miles....... BIG difference in capacity remaining even with the ratios evened up. Look at capacity remaining....not range remaining. Its not always about size.

Let me be honest in my thinking - and I don't have a link for this:.

One of the reasons why I think we haven't seen a configuration page is because they are working on pricing options. wait...working on? No. Battling it out between design and finance. As we all know.....options on cars are almost ALWAYS 100% profit for manufacturers. Extended warrantees and the like. It appears that the Model 3 will have the majority of it's options built into "allowing software". The ONLY hardware addition that I can perceive right now is another motor (dual motor). For example: I would be shocked if every Model 3 didn't come with an 85KWh battery installed - software upgradable from the 70kwh. Can you imagine the profit margin on that? 100% plus because it originally fit into the $35k price tag anyway. I don't have a link nor anything......just looking at their history. Can you imagine all of the software ( options ) that can be sold without a single person in Tesla lifting a finger? Whoaa.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Too much hypothesizing based upon no information

The title needs to be changed as nobody here has the capability of providing an answer, and I don’t see any reason for Musk to lie about maximum battery capacity of the Model 3.

There is a ton of information out there that Elon has quoted....its just that when he starts talking technical...most people fall asleep and when they wake up....ask unrelated questions such as " what kind of food are you going to serve at the reveal "?

See my post above this one.

 

[david_42]

Since the 3 motor is in front of the rear wheels, that opens up space behind the wheels, space which could be used for a second 2 or 3 layer battery pack. But people here seem to love to cry about the trunk space, like it is in the top 10 list of things to think about. God forbid Tesla makes the trunk even the least bit smaller than the maximum size it can be, even if it allows more battery and 50 plus more miles.

For many of us, trunk space matters because we use our cars for something other than cruising around. Costco runs, those warehouse deals at the local brewery, etc. If the base range is 240 miles, that's an entire week of commuting, plus trips to Costco and the local.

 

[Troy]

I assumed a 60 for the base Model 3. If it turns out to be 55 KW, the car consumes less juice to hit the goal of 218 miles: about 250 w/hr per mile. That seems on the low side of likely, but not impossible by any stretch. Especially highway miles. Robin

I see that your calculation is 55,000Wh/218mi= 252Wh/mi. Starting with Wh/mi numbers to guess the battery size of the Model 3 is an interesting strategy but real world Wh/mi numbers that people talk about are not based on EPA rated range because EPA-rated range is a little optimistic than real world range. Also rated battery capacity is higher than actual available capacity.

For example, let's take the original Model S 60. It had 208 mi EPA rated range, the battery size was known as 60 kWh. Based on these two numbers, efficiency should be 60,000Wh/208 miles= 288 Wh/mi. However, the real world range is less than 208 mi and the usable capacity is 58.5 kWh.

In fact, if you look at the survey data around cell V80 here, it shows that the S60 has 313.8 Wh/mi average efficiency. That's worse than what you calculated. It means 58,500/313,8= 186 miles average real world range for the S60.

Similarly, if we use EPA rated range and rated battery capacity, the S85 efficiency would look like 85,000Wh/265mi= 321 Wh/mi. However, the 85 kWh battery has 77.5 kWh usable capacity (source) and the average real world range is less than 265 miles. The survey data shows 342.7 Wh/mi. That means 77,500Wh/342.7 Wh/mi= 226 miles average real world range for the S85.

Some people might argue that the EPA rated range system is the perfect rating system. Tesla disagrees. That's why in Europe they have invented a completely new range unit called Typical range. Tesla cars outside North America don't display EPA rated range. It is not a selectable option in the settings. Instead, they display Typical range which can be set to km or miles as usual. The most interesting thing about Typical range is the fact that it is less than EPA rated range. For example, the S85's in the UK display 249 miles Typical range instead of 265 mi EPA rated range in the USA. Of course, even Tesla's Typical range is slightly optimistic (9% over real world average) but it is less optimistic than EPA rated range (15% over real world average).

Troy, no, I meant the M3's range and the M3's pack. Which (as far as I know) might be rated 55 or 60 KW. Has it been announced as one or the other yet?

No, it is still unclear whether it will be 55 or 60 kWh. I think with the version you have added, I'm now counting 4 different theories for the base model:

Theory 1. 55 kWh battery with 215-220 mi EPA rated range.
Theory 2. Software limited 55 kWh (actual 60) battery with 215-220 mi EPA rated range.
Theory 3. 60 kWh battery with 235-240 mi EPA rated range.
Theory 4. 60 kWh battery with 215-220 mi EPA rated range.

I don't think Theory 4 is technically possible. The Model 3 can't have a 60 kWh battery and a range less than 230 miles at the same time because:

• At 2.36 m^2, the Model 3 frontal area is 2.9% smaller than the Model S frontal area at 2.43 m^2.
• Model 3 drag coefficient is expected to be 0.21 based on Elon's tweet here vs 0.24 for the Model S. That's 12.5% better.
  
• If there was a Model 3 60, its weight should be 1,746 kg based on my calculation vs 1,961 kg for the Model S 60. That's 11% less.

Update: I think the Model 3 55 will have 54,120Wh/196 mi= 276 Wh/mi average real world efficiency.

 

[Candleflame]

Its not the same anymore. All Model S and X's have improved 0-60 times. They are all under 5 seconds now.

Model S 75: 4.3 seconds down from 5.5 seconds
Model S 75D: 4.2 seconds down from 5.2 seconds
Model S 100D: 4.1 seconds down from 4.2 seconds

Model X 75D: 4.9 seconds down from 6.0 seconds
Model X 100D: 4.7 seconds down from 4.8 seconds.

yes, but a Model 3 75 should have better 0 to 60 times as it has less weight is less exposed/fat.

Btw quite interesting how the 0 to 60 time is now so similar between dual and single drives... How come? A while ago there was quite a big difference.

 

[electracity]

The wheelbase dimensions suggest around 85 kWh battery is possible.

Is he saying only 75 kWh is possible as a Model S differentiation, in the same way Tesla will be limiting the power of the performance Model 3 so as to not go close to 2.3 seconds, even though it can be quicker?

The model 3 is likely modular and there might be more "other stuff" in the pack that comes out of the gigafactory. I agree that there seems to be more room available than just space for 75kWh, but the design of the car is likely quite different than the model S.

I'm curious to see if they made the model 3 a little too good. The impression of the 3 and the S side by side in the showroom will be interesting.

 

[Topher]

To keep the promise, they released the Model S 40 at $49.900 but it was actually a software limited 60. Then they quickly discontinued the 40. The same thing could happen now.

Rather, they offered a Model S 40, and so few people ordered it, that it was easier to just software limit a 60, for the few who ordered it, and then remove it from the line up as a failure.

If tons of people want a 55kWh Model 3, doing the same thing would be a huge mistake.

Thank you kindly.

 

[brkaus]

That a 75D Model S has the same 0-60 as a 75D Model 3 which is much lighter and leaner is completly rediculous.

Not really. It is a design choice. The smaller, lighter, leaner car could enable smaller motors which in turn would give even more efficiency.

Yes, someday there will be a higher performance 3 and it may overlap. Look at the BMW line. The performance of the 3-series and 5-series cars overlap, depending on which model within the series one selects.

I still don't get all this "no one will buy an S". Sure, there are a lot of people purchasing an S right now because there are not many options in EV space. But the S will still have more space & storage and the 3 won't meet those needs. People still purchase an Accord even through a CIVIC exists...

But yes, at first they will definitely be keeping the S/X as top-dog to get the markup. Might as well for a while.

 

[N5329K]

In fact, if you look at the survey data around cell V80 here, it shows that the S60 has 313.8 Wh/mi average efficiency. That's worse than what you calculated. It means 58,500/313,8= 186 miles average real world range for the S60.
Troy:
I would expect a larger, heavier, earlier-generation car to have worse efficiency when compared to a smaller, lighter, newer design. My point in running the numbers "backwards" was as a sanity check for some approximate real-world ranges. As someone who'd like Tesla to succeed, I remain concerned that a base Model 3's range might be less than a base Bolt's, and the effect that might have on potential first-time EV buyers.
BTW, I think the suggestion that Musk was "lying" is ridiculous.
He has been guilty of overpromising before, though.
Robin