jim3cantos
Member
...yeah, it seems that a majority in this forum (see the poll in the other thread) "want" to believe that they are going to get 20+ miles for free just because of the existence of the bolt.
-
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
I live in the suburbs but next to country roads (high speed limit), I take these to the freeway, the freeway exits right out to the parking garage (10 mph) at my work. At no time during my trip do I do a 0-30 mph without exceeding 30 mph. Although I do 0-10 mph in the work parking garage and a 0-20 mph in my neighborhood. ymmv
JeffK
Well-Known Member
5 kWh might add what... $500 to the cost of the car and it'd only affect those who order the base model. It'd bring margins down by around 1.5% for those particular orders. There are a number of ways to make that cost up, but even if one person decides to purchase a Model 3 instead of a Bolt, it represents a profit that might pay for several other vehicles if that makes sense.
The only way I can see where they wouldn't compete against the bolt on range with the base model is if the battery upgrade costs around $2000.
$800.
No. It would mostly affect 75 orders. In fact, they would make more money on the smaller battery:
Model 3 60 > They would make $42 million more profit here
Model 3 60D> They would make $119 million more profit here
Model 3 75 > They would lose $364 million here
Model 3 75D > They would lose $683 million here
Model 3 P75D > not affected
The total loss would be 683+364-119-42= 886 million dollars. Detailed calculations can be found here in columns BG-BL.
No. Down by 3.2% on overall Model 3 orders.
Last edited:
You have already said that the 60 is a bad idea. It sounds like you are starting to realize that it is a terrible idea. Let me give you another interesting detail. Here are costs associated with making the Model 3 55 and the Model 3 75D:
Model 3 55:
$08,800 Cost of battery
$00,000 Cost of dual motors
$18,900 Cost of everything else
$27,700 Total cost
Model 3 75D:
$12,000 Cost of battery
$02,600 Cost of dual motors
$18,900 Cost of everything else
$33,500 Total cost
When you look at that list, what is the most interesting thing here? To me, the most interesting thing is the fact that these two cars are exactly the same except dual motors and the battery. The battery upgrade is the most profitable item on that list where Tesla makes great margins. We already knew that looking at the Model S numbers.
The S100D costs $23,000 more than the S75D. That's $920 per kWh. If their cost is $160/kWh, their profit margin on the Model S battery upgrade is (23,000-160*25)/23,000 =~ 83%. In comparison, their overall automotive gross margin is 28%.
Imagine somebody at Tesla said let's upgrade the 75 kWh Model S to 80 kWh for free. How do you think this would affect 100 kWh Model S sales? Firstly, they would be unable to charge $23,000 for the battery upgrade. Currently, $23K for 25 kWh might look barely OK but $23K for 20 kWh looks worse. They would have to lower the price for the battery upgrade, making the 100's less profitable. Secondly, fewer people would buy the 100 kWh because people would think the 80 is a great deal and the range is enough. You are attacking 100 kWh profits on both sides, reducing the margins and volume at the same time.
Just like upgrading the 75 kWh Model S to 80 for free would be a terrible idea for 100 kWh Model S sales, releasing a 60 kWh Model 3 for $35,000 instead of 55 kWh would be a terrible idea for 75 kWh Model 3 sales.
Last edited:
I understand that rationale and their business goals apparently involve relatively huge margins (for the auto industry). However, what *seems* to be a possible case in near future is an avalanche of competition pressure perhaps forcing them to reduce those margins significantly. Their low battery manuf. cost would seem to be just the thing that they can fall back on. I don't know what battery price point they need to be at to have Model 3 production solvency, but in the upcoming highly competitive market they may not have the same luxury of upgrade- or base-battery margin.
No, I do not expect them to give away 5kW. But they have not promised us 55kWh battery, so whatever they will sell us for $35k is what they will be selling us for $35k, no "giveaway". If the car they want to sell us gets 55kWh battery, then 55kWh is what it is, but if it gets a 60kWh battery, then 60kWh is what it is. And no, I do not expect them to break their $35k promise.
If you had said "not probable" I could at least understood what you was saying, but just as I do not saying that 55kWh is not possible I do not accept that it is not possible to get to 60kWh. A 60kWh is just as reasonable guess as 55kWh.
$160/kWh cell price? :O
When GM leaked that their cell price was at $145/kWh Elon responded - at some meeting in Japan - that Tesla was already under this price point. Then we have the "at least 30% price reduction - maybe even 50%" from GF-I would give some very different prices from this. I do understand that you want to be conservative in your estimates, but as long as you do not have confirmed inside information on the current price point for the new 2170 cells from GF-I that will go into the Model 3 you should not use your earlier estimate as gospel.
You do not know what the cost to Tesla will be for the battery cells. You do not know what the price difference between the base battery and the bigger battery will be. You do not know how many that will select the base battery if it is 60kWh but the bigger if the base battery is "only" 55kWh. You may for some of this have some reasonable guesses/estimates - for the last one you may have data from the Model3Tracker, but it is still not "facts".
... or if I'm wrong and you do indeed have this confirmed data, I would very much appreciate it if you are wiling to share this information.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
$100 per kWh is possible but optimistic ... for the cells. $150 per kWh for the pack. So $750
About 10% profit on a $35k car, or $3,500.
So your proposition is for Tesla to reduce the unit profit by 12% to garner a PR line. I say leave it for the GM folks. They need something.
And I'll say it again: the EPA number that really matters is highway range at 70 - 75 mph. The Bolt is under 200 miles.
And when the Model 3 really takes off and people get clued in, the only question worth asking will be whether long distance driving can be done with Sc stops under 30 minutes each. THAT is the word of mouth that will matter, and the information informed reviewers will offer.
I agree with this. My calculations show that the Model 3 55 with 218 mi EPA will have more real world range than the Bolt with a 60 kWh battery and 238 mi EPA at any speed over 55 mph. The reason for this is because the drag coefficient is more important at higher speeds and EPA tests are performed at 32 mph on average. The Bolt has slightly less weight than the Model 3 55 but much worse drag coefficient at 0.32 versus 0.21 for the Model 3.
Based on that, I made the following prediction here a few months ago in the predictions thread:
- I predict that before the end of this year, Elon is going to say something along the lines of, "Even though the base Model 3 has a lower official range number than the Bolt, it has more real world range at highway speeds because of better aerodynamic efficiency."
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I've since read that the Bolt Cd is 0.308, but yeah, the conclusions remain the same even though a 55 kWh Tesla battery probably implies about 52 kWh usable while the 60 kWh Bolt battery is actually pretty close to usable capacity. IIRC usable is 59 kWh and the actual battery size is ~ 63 or 64 kWh.
I should also clarify that I mashed together two separate points in my earlier post:
- I suspect Tesla will want the Model 3 EPA highway range to exceed the Bolt for marketing reasons; I doubt they will have to add kWh to their original 3/2016 spec to get there.
- Bolt range at 70 - 75 mph is under 200 miles.
I would be very surprised if the extra battery would increase the price to $45k, especially as Musk said he's expecting average price to be around $42k.
Assuming the 20kWh batteries cost ~$3k to Tesla, maybe $5-7k increase in price to customer?
Garlan Garner
Banned
@SageBrush, another interesting detail is the fact that the Model 3 75D's range is closing in on the Model S 100D at higher speeds.
Yes, exactly. The Model 3 will have more range when you need it during long distance trips and the Bolt will have more range when you don't need it.
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I've said something quite similar ;-)
But honestly this is a side dish. The much faster, vastly better Tesla long distance charging network are reasons 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 to buy a Tesla and not a competitor.
That makes no sense. Most Tesla owners rarely use the charging network, as most have home charging and long distance trips are what 2 or 3 times per year at most.
Garlan Garner
Banned
What link are you using to say that "Most Tesla owners rarely use the charging network"?
Before making these calculations you might want to look at the Model S design studio, find out what they are charging for the 25 kWh upgrade from 75 to 100 and then calculate what 20 kWh would cost. Let me spare you the trouble. They are charging $23,000 for 25 kWh which would be $18,400 for 20 kWh. I'm actually starting to think my $10,000 might be too optimistic.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
When I say long distance, I mean that non-opportunistic charging is required. That could be as little as 100 miles each way or quite a bit less in inclement weather.
Similar threads
