JeffK
Well-Known Member
We do know that the Model 3 motor is a new design... maybe it's better in some way??
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?
- Thread starter Nuclear Fusion
- Start date
JeffK
Well-Known Member
There were just hardware changes in all but the P100D to make a faster 0-60... coincidence?
That the Tesla stators are the weakest link to their track performance had become clear before Electric GT. Just, they set themselves the task to void warranty and try to boost motor performance just through proper cooling. Although they may have addressed the battery pack as well.
The NextEV Nio EP9 performs around the track as well as a similarly price ICE or hybrid car. Just, this is a 7-figure price. And the EP9 naughtily did it on track tires. But rest assured, it's blindingly quick even on stock road tires.
In the 5-figure price range, EV's will need to be designed for more than that flashy 1/4 mile figure (usually you only hear 0-60 mph or something like overtaking time). Engineering needs to put into hard core cooling, and the cost of it will be added to the overal production cost. For something few will use. But, anyone into track driving will find Teslas highly limiting. It's great, for about 5 seconds. And within minutes, it become quite pedestrian. 2+ ton car, 100kW output? It will be overtaken by a stock Golf, under acceleration. going 250 kph on the Autobahn doesn't take much more than 200 kW, but alas, the top Tesla can't hold that for very long despite the 550+ kW rating.
Most EV's are not built to appeal to asphalt hooligans, but Tesla has found a niche where people pay silly amounts extra to get all the amps the pack has to offer, resulting in race car like low speed acceleration.
Eventually a brand will make a car with great motor cooling and cells that just don't car, so laptimes will chatter the fellow BEV competition. I hope Electric GT finds some ways that Tesla and others can affordably bringt to market. Some eletrons will be wasted on silly performance, but if it helps petrolheads to convert sooner...the objective may justify the means.
The context was addressing the acceleration endurance shortcoming to allow use longer that s 3-4 minute period. That limitation is limited by the stator design or its cooling.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
meh, in Boston-area traffic, I won't need it for a 3-4 minute stretch. Just a quick 0-70 getting on the highway, and a sustained 75-80 after that.
Now, if the occasional idiot in a Civic or Mustang comes along.....well.....I still wouldn't need a whole 3-4 minutes to prove my point.
And this right here.....is why I hope all of our cars come unbadged. The element of surprise.....
Now, if the occasional idiot in a Civic or Mustang comes along.....well.....I still wouldn't need a whole 3-4 minutes to prove my point.
And this right here.....is why I hope all of our cars come unbadged. The element of surprise.....
Some buy a horse to pull a wagon aound town with merchandise or passengers. The other a thoroughbred to win any battle or duel on. Even if they can't really hold a sword. Nice to have the horse for it, and show it off.meh, in Boston-area traffic, I won't need it for a 3-4 minute stretch. Just a quick 0-70 getting on the highway, and a sustained 75-80 after that.
Now, if the occasional idiot in a Civic or Mustang comes along.....well.....I still wouldn't need a whole 3-4 minutes to prove my point.
And this right here.....is why I hope all of our cars come unbadged. The element of surprise.....
It's true, all Teslas on sale offer more term power than any cars can practically find a legitimate non-criminal use for. Yet lovers of cars and their technology want cars on sale to be rated against each other as race cars. "How fast will it go?" is not a coincidental cliché. We want to know. And overpay to get slighly more, or get there slightly quicker. Just numbers and measurements. We complain that the 500kW+ drops off so quickly. But if it didn't, it would be over in 10 minutes and go maybe 50 miles (providing a long enough gear to use the power).
Tesla had brough record breaking off-the-line acceleration levels. By acccident, really. If you get enough 18650's to achieve long range, it's hard not to get the high short-burst total power output. If you merely match it with motors big enough to utilize that peak, and tweak the gearing, you get very quick acceleration. This got Tesla into supercar "performance" for this one little metric. The price of the cars seems to suit the supercar status also. For a supercar, Teslas are rubbish around a track. Up to 1/4 mile, some can challenge most ICE cars. But the latter will usually beat it at anything that's longer or around curves. And this frustrates race fans as also, me...
For a greener world, it would be good if more performance BEV's would shame the ICE offerings. But that level of performance, no-one needs without a helmet on.
Because, you know, they couldn't possibly have had any other design/engineering/packaging considerations to work around. Undoubtedly there's just a bunch of extra unused space under there that would allow them to make the batter arbitrarily larger.
Thanks for pointing that out.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
TLDR: Large battery is 80 kWh.
Hi, everybody. An EPA document discovered today here confirms 80 kWh pack size for the Model 3 RWD Long Range version. To be precise, the actual capacity is 80.5 kWh based on this calculation:
Total pack capacity = 350 V * 230 Ah= 80,500 Wh = 80.5 kWh
Total Voltage of Battery Packs: 350 Volt (source is page 3 here)
Battery Energy Capacity: 230 Ah (source is page 3 here)
The document doesn't say that 230 is 230 Ah, however, I found another example here from another car that shows the unit for "Battery Energy Capacity" is Ah.
Here is what I think happened:
The original plan was to release 55 and 75 kWh versions, then clear the current 500,000 reservation list and upgrade the pack sizes to 60 and 80 kWh. Why? Because it makes perfect sense to increase the price of the car when they have so much demand but increasing the price without changing anything doesn't look good and would upset new buyers so they would discontinue the 55/75 and release the 60/80 at a higher price. This would be the perfect plan.
Elon said maximum 75 kWh in March 2017. If they didn't already have the designs for the 80 kWh version, it would be too late to change their mind after March. That suggests 60 and 80 kWh versions were ready at least as CAD drawings or prototypes.
However, when they looked at profit margins, they realized that the overall profit margins would be low if they release 55/75 kWh versions because too many people would select the 55 kWh pack because it looked OK compared to the 75 kWh version. By increasing the larger pack size from 75 to 80 kWh, they are encouraging more people to go for the larger battery version. Also, the large gap between 220 and 310 miles suggests that at some point, they will introduce a 60 kWh version for maybe $37,000, keep the 55 around for a few more week and then discontinue it.
By the way, based on my calculations I can tell you the following:
Hi, everybody. An EPA document discovered today here confirms 80 kWh pack size for the Model 3 RWD Long Range version. To be precise, the actual capacity is 80.5 kWh based on this calculation:
Total pack capacity = 350 V * 230 Ah= 80,500 Wh = 80.5 kWh
Total Voltage of Battery Packs: 350 Volt (source is page 3 here)
Battery Energy Capacity: 230 Ah (source is page 3 here)
The document doesn't say that 230 is 230 Ah, however, I found another example here from another car that shows the unit for "Battery Energy Capacity" is Ah.
Here is what I think happened:
The original plan was to release 55 and 75 kWh versions, then clear the current 500,000 reservation list and upgrade the pack sizes to 60 and 80 kWh. Why? Because it makes perfect sense to increase the price of the car when they have so much demand but increasing the price without changing anything doesn't look good and would upset new buyers so they would discontinue the 55/75 and release the 60/80 at a higher price. This would be the perfect plan.
Elon said maximum 75 kWh in March 2017. If they didn't already have the designs for the 80 kWh version, it would be too late to change their mind after March. That suggests 60 and 80 kWh versions were ready at least as CAD drawings or prototypes.
However, when they looked at profit margins, they realized that the overall profit margins would be low if they release 55/75 kWh versions because too many people would select the 55 kWh pack because it looked OK compared to the 75 kWh version. By increasing the larger pack size from 75 to 80 kWh, they are encouraging more people to go for the larger battery version. Also, the large gap between 220 and 310 miles suggests that at some point, they will introduce a 60 kWh version for maybe $37,000, keep the 55 around for a few more week and then discontinue it.
By the way, based on my calculations I can tell you the following:
- When released in 18 months or so, the Model 3 RWD 60 kWh should have 244 mi EPA rated range.
- Tesla says the Model 3 RWD 55 kWh has 220 mi EPA, but my calculation shows that it should have 227 mi EPA. Tesla seems to be under reporting the EPA rated range of the smaller battery version. This is allowed under EPA rules. In fact, when the 90 kWh Model S first came out, the EPA website and Tesla website displayed 85 kWh rated range numbers for the 90 because the range tests were not ready yet. The rated range tests are performed by Tesla.
Last edited:
Curious. Then again, the so-called 90 pack was an 85 or 86 at best. What's in a Tesla denomination?
What consumption figure is the 227 mile based on, and where is it found? And if Tesla label something 55, what will they build? How to know, if we don't even know the cell specs?
Anyway, if the pack is 80kWh, Elon lied or they found a way to make it bigger after March, which seems unlikely.
What consumption figure is the 227 mile based on, and where is it found? And if Tesla label something 55, what will they build? How to know, if we don't even know the cell specs?
Anyway, if the pack is 80kWh, Elon lied or they found a way to make it bigger after March, which seems unlikely.
Last edited:
Can the three people that disagreed this post give this guy a medal?
Careful, integrated amp hours is lower than "battery energy capacity". And those "battery energy capacity" figures are often weird, as I discovered when compiling data from about two dozen different EVs. Stick with integrated amp hours and their associated voltage that they're integrated over.
Actual figure is about 78kWh.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
Well, usable is 78.3kWh. Total should be higher since there needs to be a small reserve to prevent bricking. 80.5kWh is probably accurate for that. In terms of whether Elon is "lying", I think it's complicated. Tesla seems to have chronically overstated usable model S battery capacity, which is their prerogative because the EPA only certifies fuel economy and range. Elon's probably understating Model 3 capacity because it's mass market and they want to make sure there aren't many situations where drivers run out of juice. It's also in their interest to downplay their testing of the 3's range, because if it can go as far as the S 100Ds for half the price/farther than a 75D for far less, they don't want to do anything to pull Model S buyers away (Probably why they're anti-selling the 3).
I'm pretty sure that lying in any significant way about the product which you are selling is considered fraud whatever the EPA may or may not certify.
That said I don't really think that they have done so regarding the battery size.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
They are lying for sure. Elon kinda sorta said 75 kWh and we know for almost certainty that the pack is 80ish kWh.
I say sue the bastard.
Similar threads
