Not only that, but folks forget that the 0-30 piece of that, which you use more often than the 40-60 part, is much quicker. In terms of usable speed it really is more than plenty unless you're planning on taking it to the drag strip.
-
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
Not only that, but folks forget that the 0-30 piece of that, which you use more often than the 40-60 part, is much quicker. In terms of usable speed it really is more than plenty unless you're planning on taking it to the drag strip.
He said EPA here. The 55 kWh is enough. They are not going to give away 5 kWh for free and they are not going to break their $35K promise. Therefore 60 kWh at $35K is not possible and 60 kWh base model for more than $35K is not possible either. There are only two possible options:
Option 1:
55 kWh for $35K
75kWh
Option 2:
55 kWh for $35K (software limited 60 kWh)
60 kWh
75kWh
Last edited:
DR61
Member
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Depends where you are located. Here in the Midwest I experience the full 0-60 mph far more often than just 0-30 mph.
FYI on trips of reasonable distance my S85 achieves rated range (~273Wh/mi) relatively easily unless there are factors like temp, elevation, etc...
I think energy consumption figures in the 250Wh/mi range are certainly possible for the 3.
I don't understand how that's mathematically possible.
Cute, except that he said than "just" 0-30, so he could be correct. Just 0-30 means you don't exceed 30mph.
Teslarati's speculation is wrong. Based on my calculation, the base model will be 55 kWh. This is not the first time the Tesla media reports something incorrect and people believe in that. Here are two related examples:
Example 1: On 16 November 2016, Trev from Model 3 Owners Club youtube channel talked about a 100 kWh Model 3 in a video here. After that video, 100 kWh was a popular idea. For example, here is forum member @JeffK hoping for 100 kWh two weeks after the video. In fact, the idea was so popular, people were tweeting Elon asking about it. He responded here by saying the battery will be less than 100 kWh. That was the end of Trev's overly optimistic 100 kWh idea. In the comments section of that video, I wrote a few messages arguing with Trev that the larger battery will be 75 kWh because 75 kWh is enough for 300 mi EPA. This happened 4 months before Elon's 75 kWh tweet. After Elon's tweet, I expected Trev to say something like people who predicted 75 kWh were right and I was completely wrong. That never happened.
Example 2: The Electrek article here on 8 February 2017 speculated that the larger battery would be 70 kWh. This was a very popular idea too. In fact, people who are unaware of Elon's 75 kWh tweet, are still using Electrek's 70 kWh number.
Both sources were wrong. Elon tweeted 75 kWh here on 24 March 2017. I created the Model 3 Delivery Estimator in September 2016 and it has been displaying 55 and 75 kWh since then. I wrote about 55 and 75 kWh on Dec 1st, 2016 here. The speculations were wrong and I was right about the 75 kWh based on my calculation. Why should I believe in speculations now instead of my own calculation that shows 55 kWh is enough for 215 mi EPA?
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Even so, that means the ratio of highway/freeway onramps is higher than stop light launches and such. I still find that highly unlikely for most drivers; perhaps all if I felt like doing some modelling.
Just my $.02 - battery cost seems to be a moving target @ roughly 6% increase in density/capacity each year while production costs keep coming down. Tesla is probably also willing to eat margin if there is a strategic advantage. That 5kWh may not be a big deal.
@zenmaster, I have done the calculations and it is, in fact, a big deal that would cost them 885 million dollars. See my calculation after column BG here.
Giving away 5 kWh for free for no reason other than trying to match Bolt's range with the base model would be the worst idea in Tesla's history. If people want more range, they can buy the 75 kWh version.
Giving away 5 kWh for free for no reason other than trying to match Bolt's range with the base model would be the worst idea in Tesla's history. If people want more range, they can buy the 75 kWh version.
Last edited:
Where are you getting 885mil? I see ($160 * 5kWh) * ~176,000 units?
I do agree that adding $650 for base Model 3 to have more range than the Bolt is a bad idea. However, that is only the competition at the moment. Their competition's offerings are exponentially increasing in just the next few of years and that extra 5kWh of range may be a key deciding factor. The larger auto makers may go on the defensive and sell at lower margins - who knows. Tesla would be leveraging their tech to outdo competitive range/cost and gain more market share.
You're using $160/kWh. Looks like they are targeting $130/kWh by as early as next year, and their costs keep coming down. Just next year, the difference in Tesla's cost between a 55kWh and 60kWh will be $650 and between 55kWh and 75kWh will be roughly $2500. But do we really know their battery costs? Seems like that'd be highly confidential.
@zenmaster,
A large percentage of Model 3 buyers are planning to buy the 75 kWh version because 215-220 mi with the 55 kWh is not enough for them. However, if Tesla releases 60/75 kWh packs instead of 55/75, some of those people will be satisfied with the 235/240 mi EPA range of the 60 and won't buy the 75 kWh. I have considered all these details in my calculation.
A large percentage of Model 3 buyers are planning to buy the 75 kWh version because 215-220 mi with the 55 kWh is not enough for them. However, if Tesla releases 60/75 kWh packs instead of 55/75, some of those people will be satisfied with the 235/240 mi EPA range of the 60 and won't buy the 75 kWh. I have considered all these details in my calculation.
I see your logic. But I also see that in less than 2 years the 60 will cost less than the 55 and between 2 and 3 years they'll be offering an 85. Current demand has orders extending over a year, and in that time there will definitely be market-pressure considerations that do not currently exist. I am by no means saying your analysis is not reasonable, and is probably correct. However, this tech seems to have a quickly shrinking cost and a huge increase in competition, which may be considerations.
Last edited:
@Topher, because you are on my ignore list, I don't normally see your messages. Here is the situation:
60 kWh at $35K is not possible. There are two options:
Option 1:
55 kWh for $35K
75 kWh for ~$45K
Option 2:
55 kWh for $35K (software limited 60 kWh)
60 kWh for ~$39K
75 kWh for ~$45K
Option 2 does not contradict my statement. The average price of the 60 kWh in Option 2 would be higher than $35,000. In fact, it would be above $37,000.
60 kWh at $35K is not possible. There are two options:
Option 1:
55 kWh for $35K
75 kWh for ~$45K
Option 2:
55 kWh for $35K (software limited 60 kWh)
60 kWh for ~$39K
75 kWh for ~$45K
Option 2 does not contradict my statement. The average price of the 60 kWh in Option 2 would be higher than $35,000. In fact, it would be above $37,000.
Similar threads
