Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?

[SageBrush]

Actually, interestingly, the way I predicted Tesla would discontinue the 60 kWh Model S was because of their focus on profit margins.

Well reasoned.

That software limited model always appeared to me to be a short term play to juice sales for the quarter, and it sure made the 75 kWh Model S a poor value by comparison.

 

[Troy]

what if you also updated your calculation with the assumption that the price in $/kWh of the cells is somewhere below your earlier assumption of $160/kWh?

In that scenario, 60's profit margins would be as good as what I'm expecting for the 55 now. Therefore if Tesla was releasing only the smaller battery, I would agree with you. The 5 kWh wouldn't be a big deal. But the negative effect on the 75 can't be ignored. That's their main bread and butter. Undermining that would cause problems.

 

[Model 3]

In that scenario, 60's profit margins would be as good as what I'm expecting for the 55 now. Therefore if Tesla was releasing only the smaller battery, I would agree with you.

Good, and I do expect the cell price to be in that area I mentioned - or below. So then we almost agree

But the negative effect on the 75 can't be ignored.

Until resently they had on their Model S and X cars the choice of 60 - 75 - 90 - 100
60 -> 75 is 15kWh
75 -> 90 is 15kWh
90 -> 100 is 10kWh
Yes, I do know that it currently is only
75 -> 100 that is 25kWh.

60 -> 75 is 15kWh.
... and a 15kWh difference on a smaller, lighter car wold not be any less range difference then the same kWh difference on bigger heavier cars?

 

[Model 3]

... and as it seems like it is the battery cost to Tesla that is the main reason behind our different view of this 55/60 probability debate, I think you may have overlooked this:
Tesla's Battery Strategy Receives Little Discussion, But It Should

GM Strides

During Tesla’s latest earning’s call, Musk and JB Straubel commented on the recent claim by GM that they would have an “industry-leading” $145 per kWh cell cost.

Musk said:

“I mean we’re constantly agonizing about cell cost and pack cost, and we don’t think anyone is on a path to be even close to us. If they are, I would be the first to congratulate them.”

Sounds like confidence with his team and battery strategy, and it resonates with me. Battery chemistry break-throughs for automotive use seems to be a long way off, with most new battery materials still being tested in the lab and no pilots really anywhere.

So it is clear that Tesla was already well below $160/kWh at cell cost in late 2015, well before GF-I had started to produce anything. Pack cost is an another thing, but not very relevant for the debate about 55 or 60kWh in one battery pack.

 

[Stolz25]

Elon is wrong about the average selling price. I'm calculating $46,690.

Is that flat or did the change come out exact?

I actually calculate $45,387.32 so clearly it is you who are wrong.

 

[Cloxxki]

Why would Model 3 have the motors inside the wheelbase? The base rear one is going to be small anyway, right?
Is Model S notorious for having insufficient trunk/frunk space? I missed that then. Model 3 is 4cm narrower and the same height, wheels are smaller and likely narrower. How do you end up with way less cargo space? Overall the car is 6% shorter, cabin shouldn't get cramped of course.
I am disappointed there will not be a Model 3-100. I feel they could have, if they just wanted it the tiniest bit. Seems with this car, they are NOT making it the best car they can within the cost target. Hope to be wowed by the RWD frunk and trunk. From the awkward hatch at the unveil, not holding me breath.

Marginal Model S cost is $30K supposedly.
Guess the marginal cost of Model 3 now, and try to not go over $35K, and try to keep in mind Model 3 has half the sale price, and they want to improve profit margin. May be shooting much higher than 30% for Model 3 itself, even the base model.

People use the full pack costs /kWh for capacity upgrades. But the pack already exist, so you just add cells, circuitry and fuses. Remember that in Model S, dummies are even put in places where cells could have been.

Bolt actually having a 63-64kWh total for a 60 nominal car, really skews Tesla's strategy, or makes the 215 mile figure seem a bit "meh".
Also, Model 3 may be barely lighter than Model S. Especially after S gets 2170 cells.
It's not in the height, similar frontal surface apparently. What's going to save the big chunk of weight? Manual rear windows? Less safety built into chassis and body?

 

[SageBrush]

Is that flat or did the change come out exact?

I actually calculate $45,387.32 so clearly it is you who are wrong.

I'm more flabbergasted by Troy's stated probability uncertainty. Ignoring for a moment the GIGO aspect as this whole exercise, I want to see the Google Docs SS that spits out stat uncertainties.

Was this some giant Monte Carlo simulation ?!

 

[alehbaba]

its anyone guess at this point. Why is there so much full with the bolt vs the model 3 range wise??? people who want the model 3 wont get a bolt...i mean night and day "style" of car...like bmw vs chevy. the bolt is ugly and a chevy so why buy it no matter what the range??

 

[SageBrush]

It's not in the height, similar frontal surface apparently. What's going to save the big chunk of weight? Manual rear windows? Less safety built into chassis and body?

Interesting post, thanks.

In terms of volume we think the Model 3 will be 6% shorter, 2% less width, and the same height as the Model S so about 92% the volume.

--
As for your reasoning by analogy from Model S, Elon has told you not to do that ;-)
I would not be surprised though to eventually find out that the impressive marginal cost reductions await production line 2.0 and that Tesla loses money on every Model 3 for some months into the future. And around that time the federal tax credit will lapse completely, adding more price pressure.

 

[alehbaba]

i cant see the model 3 having the same range as the model s....and for sure not MORE range then the s....that would be odd thing to go to kill s sales(75d).

 

[stopcrazypp]

People use the full pack costs /kWh for capacity upgrades. But the pack already exist, so you just add cells, circuitry and fuses. Remember that in Model S, dummies are even put in places where cells could have been.

Small correction. There were no dummy cells. There were modules with cells left out. Eventually they filled those in. I remember discussing this way back and it seemed non-ideal. Ideally all the modules have the same number of cells and you just use less modules.

It'll be interesting to see how they lay out the two pack sizes this time.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Only 2 more weeks. Only 2 more weeks.

For goodness sake....only 2 more weeks.

 

[Cloxxki]

Interesting post, thanks.

In terms of volume we think the Model 3 will be 6% shorter, 2% less width, and the same height as the Model S so about 92% the volume.

--
As for your reasoning by analogy from Model S, Elon has told you not to do that ;-)
I would not be surprised though to eventually find out that the impressive marginal cost reductions await production line 2.0 and that Tesla loses money on every Model 3 for some months into the future.

Could be, that the first 100,000+ cars will bring less margin. If they've ironed out the teething problems well enough before non-employees get theirs (slow ramp up helps here), the overhead cost may be below budget. For haf a million cars per year, a year from now.

Soooo.... Model S is needlessly heavy? ;-)
Well, perhaps Model 3 is indeed much lighter after all, and not just to be contributed to the 2170 cells with staggering density.
I feel that Model S still has a good number of years to go, but it may be in for an under-the-skin full redesign, taking lessons from Model 3 design and also incorporating the improvements being worked on for Model Y (much less cabling). If they redesign Model S to be easier (cheaper) to produce, they can boost its longuevity in an increasingly competitive market through cost reductions and remaining "current". Today there's no competitition, but within 3 years that'll be different. They'll need to offer bigger packs, more versatility and keep those cars out off service visits.

Imagine Lucid come through with a $45K version of that Air car, 2019-2020'ish. Model 3 doesn't compete with that. Likely Model Y will be late or underspec'd. Model S will need to step it up.

 

[Garlan Garner]

i cant see the model 3 having the same range as the model s....and for sure not MORE range then the s....that would be odd thing to go to kill s sales(75d).

The BMW 3 series didn't kill the 7 series.

There are a certain class of people out there that wouldn't be caught dead in a Model 3 series BMW. Same holds true for Tesla. The 3 series won't kill the S series no matter what.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Could be, that the first 100,000+ cars will bring less margin. If they've ironed out the teething problems well enough before non-employees get theirs (slow ramp up helps here), the overhead cost may be below budget. For haf a million cars per year, a year from now.

Soooo.... Model S is needlessly heavy? ;-)
Well, perhaps Model 3 is indeed much lighter after all, and not just to be contributed to the 2170 cells with staggering density.
I feel that Model S still has a good number of years to go, but it may be in for an under-the-skin full redesign, taking lessons from Model 3 design and also incorporating the improvements being worked on for Model Y (much less cabling). If they redesign Model S to be easier (cheaper) to produce, they can boost its longuevity in an increasingly competitive market through cost reductions and remaining "current". Today there's no competitition, but within 3 years that'll be different. They'll need to offer bigger packs, more versatility and keep those cars out off service visits.

Imagine Lucid come through with a $45K version of that Air car, 2019-2020'ish. Model 3 doesn't compete with that. Likely Model Y will be late or underspec'd. Model S will need to step it up.

No model of Tesla will kill another model.

There will always be a market for everything they make. Other manufacturers have proven that over and over .....time and time again.

Millionaires will be reluctant to buy a Model 3. I know many of them. It would be a step down in class....even if it were a better car.
When money is no object.....life's decisions seem to change - for most.

Many of the comments in the Model 3 forum seem to be from a certain financials class of people --- and understandably so.
Most millionaires I know are quiet. They don't care about many of the things in this thread. Life is apparently easier when you don't have to "sweat the small stuff" like mileage or battery sizes or insurance costs.

Indeed the things discussed here are interesting ( thank God it won't be much longer ), however they are not earth shattering either way. We will only be able to buy what Tesla sells.

 

[JeffK]

Small correction. There were no dummy cells. There were modules with cells left out. Eventually they filled those in. I remember discussing this way back and it seemed non-ideal. Ideally all the modules have the same number of cells and you just use less modules.

It'll be interesting to see how they lay out the two pack sizes this time.

Although, I don't know the story behind this pic

 

[Cloxxki]

i cant see the model 3 having the same range as the model s....and for sure not MORE range then the s....that would be odd thing to go to kill s sales(75d).

It looks like they have made sure it would not happen, but organizing floor space differently. Model S had to be 85Kwh from the get-go, even if really it was 81. Model 3 getting much denser sells had to stay at 75kWh max as the lower consumption might else bring it ahead.
On thing about batteries to differentiate the cars...for Model S/X they might unlock faster charging at the cell level. Rumors say the new cells are nearly twice as fast. Silly to let Model 3 supercharge at 600mph when Model S/X with slower cells and more consumption get half until converted to 2170's (if rumor holds true).
2170's in Model 3 could be cheaper/slower chemistry, or software throttled unless unlocked at a price. Be it per charge (I need this road trip to take me a few hours less this weekend) or one-off.

 

[SageBrush]

Imagine Lucid come through with a $45K version of that Air car

Are you talking about the same Lucid that recently scrapped their Gigafactory plans ?

 

[Garlan Garner]

It looks like they have made sure it would not happen, but organizing floor space differently. Model S had to be 85Kwh from the get-go, even if really it was 81. Model 3 getting much denser sells had to stay at 75kWh max as the lower consumption might else bring it ahead.
On thing about batteries to differentiate the cars...for Model S/X they might unlock faster charging at the cell level. Rumors say the new cells are nearly twice as fast. Silly to let Model 3 supercharge at 600mph when Model S/X with slower cells and more consumption get half until converted to 2170's (if rumor holds true).
2170's in Model 3 could be cheaper/slower chemistry, or software throttled unless unlocked at a price. Be it per charge (I need this road trip to take me a few hours less this weekend) or one-off.

We absolutely have to stop comparing the Model 3 with the Model S.

The cars are being built for totally different proposes. The Model 3 IS NOT a small Model S.

 

[JeffK]

The Model 3 IS NOT a small Model S.

Technically Elon did say:

Model 3 is just a smaller, more affordable version of Model S w less range & power & fewer features.