Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?

[cdub]

Expecting a 60 kWh Model 3 at $35k strikes me as more of the mini-Model S at half price discussion I thought we had dispensed with.

Well that's the whole point of the 3 isn't it? The range of an S at the price of a 3.

The base will be a 60... That's the whole point of the GigaFactory... To bring down battery costs. The price difference from 60 to a 55 is practically nothing so I'm not sure your argument makes sense in that regard.

One should not expect all the bells and whistles and speed and features of the S on a 3 but yes a car with a decent amount of range is what we're getting as that was the entire point of the model 3.

 

[SageBrush]

One should not expect all the bells and whistles and speed and features of the S on a 3 but yes a car with a decent amount of range is what we're getting as that was the entire point of the model 3.

At least 215 miles by EPA's combined testing, if memory serves.*

Are you saying that you think 60 kWh is required for 215 miles ?
I came up with ~ 52 kWh usable when I played around with the numbers a year ago, so I figure 55 nominal to keep some safety room for the battery to avoid bricking and improve longevity.

Actually, at the reveal Elon left open the possibility of an even longer range but the current Tesla webpage about the Model 3 says 215 miles. No "+" appended.

 

[jonnyg]

Actually, at the reveal Elon left open the possibility of an even longer range but the current Tesla webpage about the Model 3 says 215 miles. No "+" appended.

The S/3 compare website here (Compare Model S and Model 3 | Tesla) says 215+

 

[SageBrush]

The S/3 compare website here (Compare Model S and Model 3 | Tesla) says 215+

Yes, that was my point -- Tesla has firmed up the range for the base. No more speculation is warranted.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yes, that was my point -- Tesla has firmed up the range for the base. No more speculation is warranted.

View attachment 236063

It said 215 miles on that page since the unveiling last year (wayback machine link below). I would not take that as a current spec. However, Elon said this at the unveiling: "The range will be at least an EPA rating of 215 miles. I want to emphasize these are minimum numbers and we hope to exceed them."
Model 3 | Tesla

Also the comparison page suggests the same that it's a minimum number (by saying 215+).

 

[Foxhound199]

Yes, that was my point -- Tesla has firmed up the range for the base. No more speculation is warranted.

This is always what the website has said. It hasn't been firmed up, they just haven't updated practically anything on the page since the reveal.

 

[SageBrush]

I stand corrected, thanks guys.

So people can continue to speculate, but I'll stick with ~ 215 miles range. Maybe a couple more for karma but no where near 10% more based on my estimate of 55 kWh nominal needed for 215 miles.

 

[Troy]

I came up with ~ 52 kWh when I played around with the numbers a year ago

My calculation is close. I'm calculating 52.9 kWh needed for 214.6 mi EPA. I expect the 55 kWh pack to have 53.8 kWh usable capacity which translates to 218 mi EPA but I haven't included aero wheels in my calculations. Those should add a little more range too. The fact that Aero wheels even exist shows how focused Tesla is to squeeze every possible mile out of the battery. The Reddit topic about those wheels is here.

 

[Reciprocity]

@tpatana, check out my previous message again. I was editing it when you responded. I added another paragraph.

The reason I'm 100% sure there won't be a 60 kWh starting at $35K is that the illogicality of it is overwhelming. I'm continuously repeating "no 60 at $35K" because there is a chance we might see a 60. I don't want people to come back and say, see you were wrong. There might be a 60 but it won't be the base model starting at $35K.

I don't have any insider information. I'm a Tesla fanatic. I follow Tesla closely. I read every shareholder letter, blog post etc. I listen to every conference call multiple times and watch all of Elon's and JB's videos. Then I research pieces of information and put them all together on a large spreadsheet.

For example, here is the file I created for range calculations. I went to great lengths to try to calculate the Model 3 weight accurately for different battery sizes. I found an official document here in a forgotten corner of the Internet that had some useful information. I used that in calculations. Even then, my predictions are not always correct but mostly they are. You can see a list here.

I tend to agree with Troy, no one I have seen on this forum has done more detailed research into this stuff so I would naturally lean towards what Troay has deduced. I would think that if they did do a 60KWh battery the price of the car would be higher then the Bolt but so would the range. Elon has said multiple times 215+ and almost always follows that with saying they hope for more. I think the reason they didnt know for sure is that they were still tinkering with the design up until about apr of this year and they cant really say what the EPA will come up with until they are done with their testing. I have always thought it would be a 50KWh or 55KWh pack based a lot on the model S 60, which if just scaled down to the size of the model 3, the 60KWh pack would be over 238 miles of range. If the Model 3 is in fact more aerodynamic then it would be even better then that. A scaled down Model S would also be lighter then the Bolt and even more so with 2170 pack, which has a higher energy density or weighs less for the same KWh of storage. I have always used 250wh/mi, which would be 200 miles for 50KWh pack and 220 for 55KWh pack. If for any reason the wh/mi its better then 250, which it very well should be, then the range goes up from there. Then there's the fact that a 55KWh pack could actually be 56.5KWh pack. There is not enough information in the wilde to estimate, but it's not crazy to think the batter might be 50-55KWh and not 60, which could actually be a 59.5KWh pack. The differences get much smaller when you think about 56.5KWh vs 59.5KWh.

 

[tpatana]

I tend to agree with Troy, no one I have seen on this forum has done more detailed research into this stuff so I would naturally lean towards what Troay has deduced.

I agree, he probably has the most detailed information in here, and the spreadsheet is awesome too. I just don't like the claim for 100% certainty if it's not based on factual information, just logical conclusions.

 

[Troy]

...just logical conclusions.

Well, I measured the Model 3 front cross section area from a photo here and hopefully, as a physicist, you will agree that this is more than logical conclusions. At that time my range calculations were less detailed and slightly more optimistic. They don't exactly match the spreadsheet.

Also, let me update that statement I made earlier:
95.0% likely > 55 kWh base model, $35K starting price
4.9% likely > 50 kWh base model, $35K starting price
0.1% likely > 60 kWh base model, $35K starting price

 

[JeffK]

95.0% likely > 55 kWh base model, $35K starting price

See, we knew it greater than 55 kWh

 

[tpatana]

Well, I measured the Model 3 front cross section area from a photo here and hopefully, as a physicist, you will agree that this is more than logical conclusions. At that time my range calculations were less detailed and slightly more optimistic. They don't exactly match the spreadsheet.

Also, let me update that statement I made earlier:
95.0% likely > 55 kWh base model, $35K starting price
4.9% likely > 50 kWh base model, $35K starting price
0.1% likely > 60 kWh base model, $35K starting price

That look better Although I'd put 60 bit higher, just because maybe Musk's ego makes beating Bolt more important than losing some on the profit margin.

Few things are almost certain: Base model will be EPA 215 or more, and base model will cost $35k at most.

 

[zuwarrior14]

Well, I measured the Model 3 front cross section area from a photo here and hopefully, as a physicist, you will agree that this is more than logical conclusions. At that time my range calculations were less detailed and slightly more optimistic. They don't exactly match the spreadsheet.

Also, let me update that statement I made earlier:
95.0% likely > 55 kWh base model, $35K starting price
4.9% likely > 50 kWh base model, $35K starting price
0.1% likely > 60 kWh base model, $35K starting price

This is the reason why I like Troy on this forum. Not only he has the most extensive research on this forum, but he puts his ego in check as well. I myself never like people who claim 100%, but seeing Troy's reply like this you've got to this guy prop. Though I am not sure how he got the number 4.9% I would have used 4.93% just saying....

 

[Model 3]

Well, I measured the Model 3 front cross section area from a photo here and hopefully, as a physicist, you will agree that this is more than logical conclusions. At that time my range calculations were less detailed and slightly more optimistic. They don't exactly match the spreadsheet.

Also, let me update that statement I made earlier:
95.0% likely > 55 kWh base model, $35K starting price
4.9% likely > 50 kWh base model, $35K starting price
0.1% likely > 60 kWh base model, $35K starting price

Well, we are getting a movement here - from 100% to just 99.9%

So 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? What if it is $130/kWh? Or $125/kWh? Will that change anything here?

 

[Reciprocity]

@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.

Yup, if they are too close then there is no differentiation. If you think about it, there are different groups of people who will buy the Model 3, those that ever dollar maters and those that every mile of range matters. Im in the latter group so I will wait for 75D and add aero wheels/covers. Because Tesla only has 3 models now, they need each model to appeal across multiple segments. GM does car so they have one batter size. Tesla needs to satisfy Camry and Prius owners and A4 and 3-Series owners with one car. There would need to be a decent size gap in the size of the battery to get that impact. Could even see a 50 vs 75. Which would leave room for a 60 later, or as batter prices come down they get rid of the 50 for a 60. Sound familiar?

 

[JeffK]

Yup, if they are too close then there is no differentiation. If you think about it, there are different groups of people who will buy the Model 3, those that ever dollar maters and those that every mile of range matters. Im in the latter group so I will wait for 75D and add aero wheels/covers. Because Tesla only has 3 models now, they need each model to appeal across multiple segments. GM does car so they have one batter size. Tesla needs to satisfy Camry and Prius owners and A4 and 3-Series owners with one car. There would need to be a decent size gap in the size of the battery to get that impact. Could even see a 50 vs 75. Which would leave room for a 60 later, or as batter prices come down they get rid of the 50 for a 60. Sound familiar?

If the price of the upgrade was not terrible such as under $5000 I don't believe the gap needs to be that large. People will easily bite on the 75 kWh.

 

[Reciprocity]

If the price of the upgrade was not terrible such as under $5000 I don't believe the gap needs to be that large. People will easily bite on the 75 kWh.

That would not jibe with the pricing to go from 75-90-100 and I know they dont offer then 90, it was not that long ago that they did. I would expect it to be a decent premium and yes, north of $5000. Difference between 90-100 is $10,000 today roughly. Couldn't see any less then $7500, and only because 2170 is less expensive to manufacture. Hey, I want it at $5k, but im not banking on it. Mostly because they can charge $7500 based on demand. Dont forget that in late 2018, the tax credits will be phasing out, so they will need some pricing power for 2019 forward. Could see half of that credit come from the battery pack upgrade.

 

[Reciprocity]

@tpatana, the fixed price at $35K and profit margins of the 60 are not the reasons that make the 60 kWh base model impossible. It is the negative effect it would have on the 75. The 75 would suffer badly if there was a 60 kWh base model at $35K. I'm 100% sure there won't be a 60 kWh Model 3 starting at $35K, despite rumors. It is possible that there will be a 60 kWh but it won't be the base model and it won't start at $35K.

It is even possible they might have figured out a way to achieve 215+ mi EPA with a 50 kWh battery. In this scenario, having a 60 kWh middle size battery would make sense. There are many scenarios where a 60 kWh could exist but none of them have the 60 as the base model at $35K.

Agreed, what people are missing which is clouding their judgement, is that the market will support a 50/55 and 75 where the 75 is much more expensive. Look at the model S where battery levels are $10k or more per level going from 75-90-100 (I know 90 is no longer offered but was recently). And model 3 has even more pricing power because demand outstrips supply by 10:1 margin for the next 18 months or more. S/X are maybe 2:1 for comparison. Tesla is not running a charity, they are in business to make money and more importantly, they are in the business to fund a massive growth effort with several Gigafactories. They arent going to pay for themselves, oh wait. they are going to pay for themselves but only if they dont discount the batteries to much.

 

[Troy]

I understand that just because 215+ mi EPA is possible with a 55 kWh battery doesn't make a 60 kWh base model impossible at $35K. However, I have listened to all of Tesla's conference calls and I can assure you, they are very focused on profit margins. A 60 would basically kill 75's great margins. Also, there is the list of things here Elon has promised to the Tesla board. Look how consistently he crosses each item on that list one by one. 30% gross margin is one of the next items on that list. They are around 28% now.

The same thing happened with the master plan part 1 (link). If you look at what Elon said he would do years ago and the things he actually did, they match almost perfectly. This guy is amazing. He delivers on his promises. Therefore 30% gross margin is one of the current main focus points.

Actually, interestingly, the way I predicted Tesla would discontinue the 60 kWh Model S was because of their focus on profit margins. Tesla never said anything about discontinuing the 60. People were not expecting it. But in a conference call, in one sentence there was just this little piece of information about lower profit margins with the 60 (listen here) and alarm bells rang when I listened to that. However, even when I show these pieces of information, people don't want to believe it. Check out the 60 kWh Model S example here. A week after I wrote that message, Tesla announced they would discontinue the 60.

They acted much faster than I expected. Basically, they couldn't wait to get rid of the software limited Model S 60/60D fast enough. At that time people were suggesting the Model 3 60 would be software limited Model 3 75 which is of course, completely unrealistic given the fact that I knew Tesla would discontinue the software limited pack. I see a lot of wishful thinking and overly optimistic expectations in the forum. I'm used to it.