Mid range battery available now?

[ngogas]

A whole of of speculations in this thread. Some have good points and some are just out of this world.

 

[Knightshade]

Taking FSD deposits have no effect on revenue or expenses. The deposit is a debit to Cash and a credit to Customer Deposits. It affects their balance sheet but not their i&e.

Ah, yup- extra dumb of me since I'd basically just said the same thing regarding the car deposits...

Still, going forward every new 2.5 car they sold with FSD they'd know they have an additional cost obligation of both parts and labor on replacing the computer in it for $0.00 additional money, which WOULD impact it- so might as well stop selling free upgrades that cost you money.

 

[TT97]

Ah, yup- extra dumb of me since I'd basically just said the same thing regarding the car deposits...

Still, going forward every new 2.5 car they sold with FSD they'd know they have an additional cost obligation of both parts and labor on replacing the computer in it for $0.00 additional money, which WOULD impact it- so might as well stop selling free upgrades that cost you money.

True; which is why I think Tesla will replace the hardware the same quarter they implement their first FSD feature so they can offset the cost with recognizing the income from the FSD deposits.

 

[gilscales]

interesting to me how the 260 is flagged as EPA estimate. So I assume that's going off the 334 or whatever the LR RWD was originally? if we go off that the mid range pack would be ~58kwh usable.

weight on the RWD model 3 is listed as 3,838 lbs. and the MR model 3 is listed as 3,686 lbs. for a difference of 152 lbs. if we assume the only difference is smaller battery pack and the long range pack is at 1,054 lbs. then the 152 lbs. would only be 14.421252%, using the 310 range would give just over 265 miles range and that does not even take into account that the car should get slightly better range than 126 mpe as it is lighter

 

[gilscales]

I like the idea of having a limited run LR RWD, but I have a feeling the medium range car is just a short term solution. Once they get costs down, I think Tesla will come out with the SR model and discontinue the MR. Once (and if) that happens, they will likely reintroduce the LR RWD.

As far as a different color interior, my plan is to reskin the seats at Custom Leather Auto Interiors & Leather Seats | Katzkin in a few years. They have a ton of color options and can also reupholster the interior trims to match.

My best guess is that they will sell maybe 30,000 to 50,000 in the SR model while discontinuing the MR then move to dual motor 40k or even 42k starting price on the short range making all Tesla's dual motor, maybe make the pup standard across the board with dual motor standard then 45k could be starting price and Tesla can claim they did not raise prices but just eliminated options for one reason or another.

 

[gilscales]

Tough choice! With the new MR RWD you'll get white interiors option, lower base cost, and lower range. LR RWD you'll get the longest range Model 3 available today (longer and more efficient than AWD/P3D)...but no white interior option, and higher base cost.

Do you want range or white interiors?

you forgot faster charging and 5.1 vs. 5.6 0-60

 

[gilscales]

Mid Range will not be a software limited Long Range. It will have a smaller pack.

Also likely the range will not be sandbagged like the LR. It will probably be a "true" EPA rated range.

Don't think so, MR is only 152 lbs. lighter or less than 15% of the battery in weight reduction, range based off of current 310 on RWD LR the MR should be 265 miles

 

[Gavyne]

you forgot faster charging and 5.1 vs. 5.6 0-60

Details...

j/k

 

[ebmcs03]

Long Range RWD is no longer available?

 

[Gavyne]

Long Range RWD is no longer available?

Yes, you now have an unicorn, congrats!

 

[ebmcs03]

Yes, you now have an unicorn, congrats!

I don’t want a unicorn that’s has like 70,000 other ones running around.

I would have gotten the cheaper car! I don’t need 310 miles. Damn it Tesla. Price gouged me by not providing me with complete information.

 

[xav-]

Don't think so, MR is only 152 lbs. lighter or less than 15% of the battery in weight reduction, range based off of current 310 on RWD LR the MR should be 265 miles

RWD lR range is 334 miles. So it’s 260 miles VS 334 miles (or 330.. I forgot). I can’t imagine why Tesla would make the mistake again to overshoot the battery size.

 

[ulrichw]

Don't think so, MR is only 152 lbs. lighter or less than 15% of the battery in weight reduction, range based off of current 310 on RWD LR the MR should be 265 miles

Except it sounds like they're primarily removing cells while keeping the basic structure of the battery pack the same. The question is what percentage of the battery pack is cells - the 152lbs comes off of that.

 

[insaneoctane]

Meaning cost to Tesla goes up from what they originally thought with every 3k FSD presale they make.

Now that they KNOW it needs one, they're losing more profit per car sold with it.

Hence they save money no longer offering that until there's no longer a HW upgrade needed.




Which, again, is why once they know it needs one it saves them money to stop selling it until they no longer need to do upgrades for people... (which will be in ~6 months when the car just comes from the factory with the upgraded computer)




And your point is factually incorrect.

Here's the math.

Today:

$3000 for FSD. It costs Tesla $X to put the 2.5 computer in the car (X can be any number you like) it costs $Y to put the 3.0 computer in after the fact. Tesla is essentially paying for 2 computers and the labor to swap with every FSD sale at this point. So profit= $3000 minus $X minus $Y per car.

6 months from now:

$3000 for FSD. It costs Tesla $Z to put the 3.0 computer in at the factory. $Z is a smaller number than $Y. Profit= $3000 minus $Z. Which is a larger profit, specifically by $X plus the value of $Y minus $Z.


Therefore they are saving money long term by taking FSD off the table until the 3.0 computer comes from the factory.

For post-sales, they easily resolve that by simply including the difference between $Y and $Z in the post-purchase cost of FSD for 2.0/2.5 owners.

Until AP3 shows up, all cars sold will have $X cost for AP2.5 standard hw. Doesn't matter if you purchase FSD or not.

 

[gilscales]

Except it sounds like they're primarily removing cells while keeping the basic structure of the battery pack the same. The question is what percentage of the battery pack is cells - the 152lbs comes off of that.

You are absolutely right!
seems the entire pack weighs 1054 lbs. with all of the electronics, the 4 modules come to 796 lbs. and they still have some robust plastic casing and cooling tubes in them, cannot seem to find individual cell weight but Samsung makes a 21700 5 mah battery that weighs 69 grams, lets use that weight and 4,416 of them comes to approx. 672 lbs. now if we deduct 152 lbs. worth then its approx. 22.6% smaller that the long range or about 62.3 kWh vs. 80.5 for the LR, (if each "brick of 46 cells" were reduced to 36 cells that would be 3,456 cells or 63 kWh which seems most likely) if we just deducted a straight 22.6% from the 310 range it is more like 240, if we start with the 334 EPA number then we get about 258.5 so it would seem the sandbagging would be lifted for the MR model 3 rated range

 

[insaneoctane]

Unless Tesla can produce the new AP3 hardware for less than the AP2.5 hardware, would they just keep putting it in all the non FSD cars? Only FSD would require the hardware and if it isn't ordered with it they can fully justify passing the hardware upgrade to the buyer?

For example, Let's just say AP3 costs Tesla $400 and AP2.5 costs Tesla $300.
If FSD becomes compelling and the post delivery FSD take rate becomes 10% of their monthly production rate, at 5K, that's 500 vehicles per month that will ultimately require AP3 hardware. Tesla can either put AP2.5 in every car and retrofit AP3 only when needed. That's 500 X $300 = $150,000 (original AP2.5 hw) + 500 X $400 = $200,000 (retrofit AP3) for total hw costs of $350,000 for those 10% who upgraded.
Or, put AP3 in all of the cars from the beginning. Those that don't need it (4,500 X $100 = $450,000) + FSD that do need it (500 X $400 = $200,000) for total cost of $650,000. These numbers don't justify putting AP3 in every vehicle. Either the hardware price delta need to be less (<$50) or the post delivery take percentage needs to be higher (>25%) to justify putting AP3 in every single car....

 

[BioSehnsucht]

Unless Tesla can produce the new AP3 hardware for less than the AP2.5 hardware, would they just keep putting it in all the non FSD cars? Only FSD would require the hardware and if it isn't ordered with it they can fully justify passing the hardware upgrade to the buyer?

For example, Let's just say AP3 costs Tesla $400 and AP2.5 costs Tesla $300.
If FSD becomes compelling and the post delivery FSD take rate becomes 10% of their monthly production rate, at 5K, that's 500 vehicles per month that will ultimately require AP3 hardware. Tesla can either put AP2.5 in every car and retrofit AP3 only when needed. That's 500 X $300 = $150,000 (original AP2.5 hw) + 500 X $400 = $200,000 (retrofit AP3) for total hw costs of $350,000 for those 10% who upgraded.
Or, put AP3 in all of the cars from the beginning. Those that don't need it (4,500 X $100 = $450,000) + FSD that do need it (500 X $400 = $200,000) for total cost of $650,000. These numbers don't justify putting AP3 in every vehicle. Either the hardware price delta need to be less (<$50) or the post delivery take percentage needs to be higher (>25%) to justify putting AP3 in every single car....

Purpose built NN hardware should be cheaper than Nvidia GPUs, per chip. It will take a while to pay off the initial R&D, tapeout, etc costs, but likely within a few years they will make back that investment, and saving money from then on.

They might use the remainder of AP2.5 hardware until it runs out, but they won't keep building AP2.5 boards because the per unit cost is going to be cheaper with the NN boards and the more of them they ship the faster the per unit savings will pay off the initial costs.

 

[sreams]

It’s interesting Tesla lists the MR battery range at 260 miles (EPA est.), while the LR AWD and Performance do not list EPA.

It makes you wonder what the “real world range” of the MR 3 is. If you consider the LR RWD 3 has an EPA est. range of 334 miles, but Tesla reduced it by ~7%, the real world range of the MR 3 is more like 242 miles.

Those of you having some level of buyer’s remorse about purchasing a LR RWD 3 should be looking at it that way, for a better apples-to-apples range comparison.

LR RWD 3 = 334 epa vs. MR RWD = 260 epa
LR RWD 3 = 310 real world vs. MR 3 = 242

I don't believe this is correct. Tesla chose the 310 mile figure because it more closely matched the EPA range of the dual motor versions, so as not to make them look bad in comparison. 310 miles was not chosen because it is "real world".

 

[transpondster]

151lbs ~ 69kg, so about 1000 cells, but we know that it's multiply of 96, most likely 36x96 in new pack versus 46x96 in LR. Also 334/46*36 ~= 260. Anybody knows weight of fillers in original 60 pack?

 

[Tezlah]

I don't believe this is correct. Tesla chose the 310 mile figure because it more closely matched the EPA range of the dual motor versions, so as not to make them look bad in comparison. 310 miles was not chosen because it is "real world".

Regardless, 334 is EPA for RWD LR, 260 is EPA for MR.