Model 3 100 kWh battery and Ludicrous Mode [speculation about future developments]

[Saghost]

I mean, Elon explicitly said they can't, but you do you.

Elon Musk on Twitter


I get when folks doubt Elon because he's promising some future feature that doesn't work yet... but here he's simply saying existing battery tech can't physically fit in a car that exists and has known dimensions.

So no 100kwh pack unless they redesign the car (not happening barely 2 years into production especially with GF3 just getting going) or they switch to a different, denser, battery tech (which would happen in the more expensive S/X first anyway as they've made a very very obvious effort to keep S range ahead of the the 3)


So if I had to be cassandra about it I'd say at BEST you could:

Look for newer,denser, battery tech in the S mid 2020 when Plaid comes along.... then showing up in Roadster and X maybe 2021 or very end of 2020 depending how they can ramp the new battery production (Musk specifically said X/Roadster later)

And then that in the 3/Y maybe 2022 since the 3 will be ~5 years old by then and a bit of a facelift wouldn't hurt anyway... plus 2022 is when I expect actual competitors will be showing up in decent numbers so another generational tech jump would make sense.


and at worst:

If Plaid comes out and it's just S/X/Roadster using 2170 cells (which are about 50% denser than the 18650 they use now).... you're looking at even longer to see 100kwh in a 3/Y.

And given they probably would want a longer return on investment on 2170s than just a couple years of 3 production, that seems even more likely than the best case scenario.

The wildcard there is how quick they get maxwell tech into a production battery.

Not 50% denser. ~50% more energy per cell - using cells with 46% more nominal internal volume.

Energy density is typically based on volume or mass, and to make big differences in either requires improvements in the chemistry.

The switch to 2170 gives a very small bonus to pack density by slightly reducing the structure per unit electrolyte, but it’s trivial. Real change requires either more battery weight/volume or better chemistry.

 

[Knightshade]

Elon said that in February, 2017....

Yeah, I’ll go with nearly three years later “stuff has changed” and I’ll certainly do me.

What has changed between Feb 2017 and today regarding the physical size of the Model 3?

Because that's the thing he said made it impossible to fit a 100kwh battery pack.

In addition the 3 is an infinitely more important car to Tesla, and makes them far more money than S/X given the volume of sales, so it makes way more sense (to me) to keep pushing the envelope with this car over any other.

On the contrary- it's a volume car.

So unless they have some new magic battery tech to do this with it'd be insanely dumb to offer a 100kwh pack even if it WERE physically possible (which, again, it's not with current batteries).


Because that means they can't build as many cars.

Since they're battery constrained as it is

Adding 25% more battery means they can build 25% less cars right now.

 

[brur]

with current batteries, you would need nearly 24 inches more length to reach 100kw. 30% more energy density per cell space. I don't think either is physically or commercially possible in the near future.

When you think of the roadster it would be trivial to stack two batteries atop each other, in a car designed for it. We know for certain that is functionally a tesla concept.

 

[WilliamG]

What has changed between Feb 2017 and today regarding the physical size of the Model 3?

Because that's the thing he said made it impossible to fit a 100kwh battery pack.




On the contrary- it's a volume car.

So unless they have some new magic battery tech to do this with it'd be insanely dumb to offer a 100kwh pack even if it WERE physically possible (which, again, it's not with current batteries).


Because that means they can't build as many cars.

Since they're battery constrained as it is

Adding 25% more battery means they can build 25% less cars right now.

First, I don’t really believe that adding 25% more battery means Tesla can build 25% fewer cars. I get what you’re saying but I don’t see it that way. Tesla is churning out cars incredibly quickly and seem to be assembly-factory constrained rather than battery constrained.

We’ll see, I suppose.

 

[Knightshade]

First, I don’t really believe that adding 25% more battery means Tesla can build 25% fewer cars. I get what you’re saying but I don’t see it that way.

I mean.. it's pretty straightforward math.

For every 300 kwh of cells, they can make 4 75 kwh cars, or 3 100 kwh cars.

If batteries are what is limiting them- a fact they've explicitly stated numerous times then using 25% more battery per car inherently means they can make 25% fewer cars.

Tesla is churning out cars incredibly quickly and seem to be assembly-factory constrained rather than battery constrained.

Nope. If they had a bunch of extra battery capacity they would've added another model 3 line at Freemont a year ago instead of having extra space for Y lines there now.

There also wouldn't be crazy long waits to get powerwall installs.


They've repeatedly said they don't have enough batteries to meet current demand, and the lack of them is also choking off their energy business too.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was also part of the delay on semi and roadster both of which will be massive hogs for battery cells.

 

[WilliamG]

I mean.. it's pretty straightforward math.

For every 300 kwh of cells, they can make 4 75 kwh cars, or 3 100 kwh cars.

If batteries are what is limiting them- a fact they've explicitly stated numerous times then using 25% more battery per car inherently means they can make 25% fewer cars.





Nope. If they had a bunch of extra battery capacity they would've added another model 3 line at Freemont a year ago instead of having extra space for Y lines there now.

There also wouldn't be crazy long waits to get powerwall installs.


They've repeatedly said they don't have enough batteries to meet current demand, and the lack of them is also choking off their energy business too.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was also part of the delay on semi and roadster both of which will be massive hogs for battery cells.

What I’m saying is Tesla isn’t likely to divulge their evolving battery chemistry, and near 3 years is a long time when you’re Tesla.

 

[Gasaraki]

This is exactly why I didn't want to order my Performance 3. Literally ordered it yesterday and this article comes out. If this were to happen, it would immediately kill the value of the car.

Tesla leaks code hinting at Model 3 100 kWh battery pack, Ludicrous mode, and more - Electrek

If you're will to pay an extra 10k to go from 75kwh to 100kwh... It's not going to kill the value of your car.

 

[BrakeDome]

I'd pay $2k for 0.5 seconds in a HEARTBEAT.

Must be nice to have $2k to just burn with a snap of the fingers. Wish I knew how that felt

 

[WilliamG]

Must be nice to have $2k to just burn with a snap of the fingers. Wish I knew how that felt

All relative, I suppose.

 

[BrakeDome]

Elon said that in February, 2017....

Yeah, I’ll go with nearly three years later “stuff has changed” and I’ll certainly do me.

In addition the 3 is an infinitely more important car to Tesla, and makes them far more money than S/X given the volume of sales, so it makes way more sense (to me) to keep pushing the envelope with this car over any other.

I’m with William on this one. I also think the model 3 may get a larger battery pack some time in 2020. (But because Tesla would want to incorporate a bigger battery for use on certain versions of the model Y, and model 3 would just be a beneficiary of this design effort)

If this larger pack is released, I do think it could be limited to the performance version of the 3, and I’m even thinking that the power boost that is $2k now for the LR AWD, could end up being the new standard for the LR AWD if a new performance version is offered.

 

[brur]

I’m with William on this one. I also think the model 3 may get a larger battery pack some time in 2020. (But because Tesla would want to incorporate a bigger battery for use on certain versions of the model Y, and model 3 would just be a beneficiary of this design effort)

If this larger pack is released, I do think it could be limited to the performance version of the 3, and I’m even thinking that the power boost that is $2k now for the LR AWD, could end up being the new standard for the LR AWD if a new performance version is offered.

I suppose Elon could wrinkle his nose and stretch the battery compartment 30 %~ almost two feet. Or he could wiggle his toes and make a battery 30 % more better. :_) (that's my Picasso portrait)

 

[brur]

there is a chance that photo of a stretch model 3 could be where a 100 kWh battery could fit. Don't think it's intended for the US market.

 

[Gasaraki]

They are testing a stretched out model 3 in China because rich people like to be driven there. It makes sense that they would fit a larger battery pack and offer more power. No doubt this will cost way more than normal anyway.

Why would they buy a model 3 then? Shouldn't they be buying the Model S and Telsa looking to stretch that one?

 

[Knightshade]

Why would buy a model 3 then? Shouldn't they be buying the Model S and Telsa looking to stretch that one?

Tesla doesn't build an S in China- this might be pretty relevant depending what happens with tariffs.

 

[Gasaraki]

People are confusing going from 75kwh to 100kwh requiring the battery to be 33% bigger. With battery advances in the last 3 years, maybe this could be done with only the battery being 20% bigger? and they could package it better, removing the need for the car to actually be physically bigger.

 

[TMThree]

I'm deeply skeptical. A 100 kWh pack would require either a massive improvement in energy density or a substantial increase in pack volume, and I'm not sure where they can increase the volume safely.

It's very possible. We've already been seeing the results of incremental density updates.

Detailed buried in this post:

Thread by @jpr007: "TESLA PANASONIC BATTERIES - UPDATE 20191130 There have been a number of interesting developments taking place at GF1 over the last six month […]"

About two years ago 4,416 cells of 2170 size were require to build a 75 kWh Model 3 battery pack, as illustrated by a Jack Rickard teardown of a used Model 3 in June 2018

This rates each cell at 16.98 Wh each of useable capacity

14. Today we estimate that Tesla can build a 75 kWh Model 3 battery pack with 4,067 cells

This rates each cell at 18.44 Wh each, for a +8.6% improvement in useable cell capacity​

 

[Saghost]

It's very possible. We've already been seeing the results of incremental density updates.

Detailed buried in this post:

Thread by @jpr007: "TESLA PANASONIC BATTERIES - UPDATE 20191130 There have been a number of interesting developments taking place at GF1 over the last six month […]"

About two years ago 4,416 cells of 2170 size were require to build a 75 kWh Model 3 battery pack, as illustrated by a Jack Rickard teardown of a used Model 3 in June 2018

This rates each cell at 16.98 Wh each of useable capacity

14. Today we estimate that Tesla can build a 75 kWh Model 3 battery pack with 4,067 cells

This rates each cell at 18.44 Wh each, for a +8.6% improvement in useable cell capacity​

Maybe. But even if that report is correct, it's a long way from 8% improvement to 33%. We'll see.

 

[raptor5244]

Oh I agree completely. That’s why I bought the 3P+. The 3P- was of no interest to me. And while you can get better brakes and better suspension and better...whatever... after the fact - I love the OEM look and love my warranty, which with a Tesla is a must.

Even the OEM Primacy tires on a 3P- makes no sense to me. They scrabble so hard on cornering, even if you’re just having spirited drives around town. It definitely makes me think of the traditional American sense of “performance,” that is - living life a quarter mile at a time! We don’t need no stinking corners!

Agreed. It makes no sense to have supercar levels of performance and then have these wimpy brakes and ECO tires. It is actually dangerous. You never see manufacturers do this with their performance models. Whether it is Corvettes, Camaros SS/ZL1, Mustangs GTs, Hellcats, performance Audi/BMW/Mercedes trims, etc. they all put sticky rubber and performance brakes, improved suspension, etc.

I recall watching a father son car review video (The Fast Car Lane) and the kid was in an LR AWD racing his Dad in a AMG and the kid couldn't stop the car once he hit about 100mph and drove off the end of the road. As a general rule when you make a car accelerate fast you also want it to be able to stop fast. Watch for yourself.

Go to 14:45 in the video.

 

[Knightshade]

Agreed. It makes no sense to have supercar levels of performance and then have these wimpy brakes and ECO tires. It is actually dangerous

On the street? it's really not.

A lot of folks don't understand how things like stopping actually work though so they think giant rotors or many-piston big calipers are some YUGE benefit in normal driving. They're not. At all.

The tires certainly matter- but the same tires fit fine on the 18 or 19 inch rims too for the non P3D+ cars (and you get lighter wheels as a bonus)

I recall watching a father son car review video (The Fast Car Lane) and the kid was in an LR AWD racing his Dad in a AMG and the kid couldn't stop the car once he hit about 100mph

No, the kid was too distracted by the result of the race to react properly to the end of it. He didn't appear to slow or turn in time.

User error.

and drove off the end of the road. As a general rule when you make a car accelerate fast you also want it to be able to stop fast.

Yeah- but that's again tires- not brakes.

Also once you move from the accelerator to the brake pedal, physics doesn't care how "fast" you got to the current speed at all, right?

(it also doesn't care how big your rotors are when determining how many feet it'll take the car to stop- that's entirely determined by the tires- which are the thing that actually stops the car)


By all means, if you plan to track the car with any frequency, use upgraded brakes that can insure the car stops in the same distance as the first time through a larger # of stops without cooling... but no brake upgrade will ever stop the car shorter than the stockers can the first time. Because again- brakes aren't what stops you- tires are.

 

[raptor5244]

On the street? it's really not.

A lot of folks don't understand how things like stopping actually work though so they think giant rotors or many-piston big calipers are some YUGE benefit in normal driving. They're not. At all.

The tires certainly matter- but the same tires fit fine on the 18 or 19 inch rims too for the non P3D+ cars (and you get lighter wheels as a bonus)

I am not suggesting they are for "normal" street driving but we are discussing the performance trims that can accelerate to 60mph in 3 sec and 1/4 mile in mid 11s and come with Track Mode.

No, the kid was too distracted by the result of the race to react properly to the end of it. He didn't appear to slow or turn in time.

User error.

Agreed, but with better tires he would have had a better chance of stopping in time and if he repeated this activity the better brakes would resist fade much better. Again, performance car doing high performance level of driving. Accelerating to 100+mph and trying to stop in short distances, possibly repeatedly on a road course or canyon road, etc.

Yeah- but that's again tires- not brakes.

Also once you move from the accelerator to the brake pedal, physics doesn't care how "fast" you got to the current speed at all, right?

(it also doesn't care how big your rotors are when determining how many feet it'll take the car to stop- that's entirely determined by the tires- which are the thing that actually stops the car)

I am aware but once you put some sticky tires on then we might find the limits of the stock brakes and whether they can provide enough stopping power to even lock up a set of sticky tires. There are some other advantages to the bigger brake kits as well. Along with dissipating heat better, when combined with the right brake pads you can get more initial bite and better overall pedal feel which can inspire more braking confidence as well.

I own both an SR+ and M3P+ and for city driving I would argue if you time your stops just right you don't need any brakes, just some nicely timed re-gen braking. However, when I drive these cars back to back and actually use the brakes I notice the brake feel difference in the P3+, which is a combination of the larger brakes and sticky tires. They also look the part.