Model 3 Battery size

[Model 3]

If you happen to come across any of those links for the math, etc... I'd be interested.

I'll try to remember it

 

[Model 3]

He wrote off 100kWh version for good.

Hmm... Is that correct? I think I remembered that he said that there is no current plans to go above 100kWh. And that it does not fit the Model 3 is of course "with current technology". New chemistry/cell-format may change that.

 

[Red Sage]

10% buffer?

None of the cars have had that. It's been more like 3-4%.

Hmmm... Let's call it 5% then.

50 kWh x 0.95 = 47.5 kWh
47,500 Wh ÷ 250 miles = 190 Wh per mile​

Sure. It could happen. In a Tesla VERSA.

Better?

Here the thing is... I keep reminding people that the Toyota RAV4 EV had about a 50 kWh battery pack with 41.8 kWh usable. It achieved an EPA rated range of 103 miles. And it used a Tesla supplied drivetrain and battery pack. And was front wheel drive. And weighed about 400 lbs less than the Model S 60. Also, Tesla originally expected the Model S 40 might have a range of around 180 miles. They may have downgraded that to around 160 miles at one point. But the actual EPA rated range was only 139 miles instead. Using a software limited 60 kWh battery pack. Further, the Model S 60 was originally marketed with a potential range of 230 miles. Once more, the EPA rated range ended up being quite a bit less, at 208 miles instead. Even the Model S 85 originally targeted a range of 320 miles. That was downgraded to 300 miles rather early on. But the actual EPA rated range was much, much lower at 265 miles.

Now, the EPA ratings for EV range are not helped by the fact they presume you virtually 'spill' 15%-to-20% of the electrons you fill with on the floor of your garage through induction losses... So their notion of Wh per mile is typically far higher than actual use from the battery pack in practice as reported by real world owners. But it seems their range and energy use calculations are biased as much as possible in favor of plug-in hybrids over pure battery electric vehicles. Unless those BEVs are short range torture chamber penalty box deathmobile commuters from traditional automobile manufacturers with a reported range under 80 miles. In which case they get an MPGe rating of over 120 for some reason. Because let's face it no one spills 15%-to-20% of the gasoline/diesel they get at the pump. They just waste 64%-to-92% of the energy those fuels provide as heat energy, and that's OK. I think that most don't quite recognize the financial aspect of EPA ratings, and how those considerations affect the numbers they provide. Essentially they paint EVs in the worst possible light -- and it still doesn't work -- but they do it anyway.

What I'm saying here is that even if you think a certain minimal capacity battery pack will, should, or ought to allow Model ☰ to achieve an official EPA range that is superior to BOLT you are absolutely mistaken. It ain't gonna happen. This goes back to the revelation that the BOLT's 60 kWh battery pack is rumored to actually have better than a 66 kWh actual capacity. Even the most efficient EPA ratings for EVs don't go below around 270 Wh per mile. And Tesla's cars have EPA efficiency ratings ranging from 320 Wh/mile to 390 Wh/mile so far. So, expecting Tesla Model ☰ to get an EPA range rating that magically equates to somewhere between 150 Wh/mile and 210 Wh/mile is either woefully naïve or incredibly optimistic, depending on your point of view.

The proper way to address this issue is by having a very large battery pack capacity, well beyond the amount that you know should be 'enough' to reach a given range. Because if you aim for only 'enough', the EPA method of determining EV range will punish you by around 10%. And in the case of Tesla, perhaps quite a bit more than that, 'just because'.

139 ÷ 160 = 0.86875~
208 ÷ 230 = 0.90434...
265 ÷ 300 = 0.88333~​

Is this a conspiracy? Idunno. It is definitely a methodology though. And it was employed for a reason I cannot comprehend. Some of you might be satisfied with a base range of 239 miles for bragging rights. Tesla might be satisfied with a range of 225 miles because that would exceed the promise. But I note that 225 miles is 10% less than 250 miles. Keep that in mind when the actual EPA rating for Model ☰ is revealed. Because for the car to get a 250 mile EPA range rating, it might need 'enough' battery capacity for around 278 miles.

Tesla builds compelling, expensive, performance, economy cars. Because of that focus on Performance, the likelihood of drastically low energy use is extremely low. That focus compels people to buy. And people who buy keep the company alive. Survival is the key to longevity. I believe that is the proper strategy for Tesla to employ for the duration. That is why there will not be a Tesla Yaris, Tesla VERSA, or Tesla FIT anytime... SOON, if ever.

 

[LectrikPower]

Tesla builds compelling, expensive, performance, economy cars. Because of that focus on Performance, the likelihood of drastically low energy use is extremely low. That focus compels people to buy. And people who buy keep the company alive. Survival is the key to longevity. I believe that is the proper strategy for Tesla to employ for the duration. That is why there will not be a Tesla Yaris, Tesla VERSA, or Tesla FIT anytime... SOON, if ever.

I disagree. Remember Tesla's mission is to speed the transition to sustainable transport. You don't do that by by leaving out the cheap simple "civic" type vehicles.

First they got to make expensive compelling performance cars. Then they make cheaper cars for everyone. I don't think that stops at the 3 or model Y level.

 

[dsvick]

I disagree. Remember Tesla's mission is to speed the transition to sustainable transport. You don't do that by by leaving out the cheap simple "civic" type vehicles.

First they got to make expensive compelling performance cars. Then they make cheaper cars for everyone. I don't think that stops at the 3 or model Y level.

Elon has already strongly hinted that there won't be anything cheaper than the Model 3. "A lower cost vehicle than the Model 3 is unlikely to be necessary, because of the third part of the plan described below." From the Master Plan, Part Deux

 

[SpiceWare]

As Musk said 100kWh is not going to fit, then he said it will not fit when Model 3 arrives, nor few years later.
If he was planning for 85-90kWh then telling "100kWh won't fit" would be incorrect/lie.

Second statement first - 85 and 90 are both less than 100, so that is neither incorrect nor a lie.

First statement second - Elon Musk: "On average, we expect to increase pack capacity by roughly 5% per year." Assuming that trend continues, we start with a variety of potential max pack sizes for 2017 and can easily forecast how soon a 100 kWh pack might fit.

 

[LectrikPower]

Elon has already strongly hinted that there won't be anything cheaper than the Model 3. "A lower cost vehicle than the Model 3 is unlikely to be necessary, because of the third part of the plan described below." From the Master Plan, Part Deux

I think that demand will drive it. If the three is wildly successful more people will want a Tesla. 35k plus is not affordable for many.

 

[Sonny Daze]

I think that demand will drive it. If the three is wildly successful more people will want a Tesla. 35k plus is not affordable for many.

Then they will have to rent one from the Tesla Network.

 

[alseTrick]

Sample of 1 that says less than 60.
Not enough data for a meaningful conclusion.

A meaningful conclusion is that Tesla will outdo the competition.

So nobody anywhere with any credibility has said >60? Interesting. Thanks for your response.

 

[Sonny Daze]

So, expecting Tesla Model ☰ to get an EPA range rating that magically equates to somewhere between 150 Wh/mile and 210 Wh/mile is either woefully naïve or incredibly optimistic, depending on your point of view.

Hyundai is apparently claiming 124 miles from a 28kWh battery with the IONIQ.

P.S. - I like the use of ☰.

 

[LectrikPower]

Then they will have to rent one from the Tesla Network.

They want to BUY.

 

[Sonny Daze]

They want to BUY.

That may be, but Elon's Part Deux plan includes reducing the number of cars on the road (by ride sharing), not making millions of cheap ones.

 

[dsvick]

I think that demand will drive it. If the three is wildly successful more people will want a Tesla. 35k plus is not affordable for many.

And that may well be true but that doesn't mean that everyone that wants one will get one. My son wants a new, super fast, liquid cooled, state of the art gaming computer, he'll get something a lot less expensive and less capable. Since Tesla makes premium vehicles the implication is that they'll leave it to another manufacturer to develop and sell the less expensive BEVs while they continue to push the boundaries.

 

[alseTrick]

I think that demand will drive it. If the three is wildly successful more people will want a Tesla. 35k plus is not affordable for many.

Agreed. It'd be a very stupid business decision not to make a model cheaper than the 3.

 

[arnis]

85-90 kWh < 100 kWh so by definition that wouldn't be a lie.

Again, all batteries for the Model 3 will likely be the same physical size regardless of capacity. Whatever fits with current cooling tech fits. Lower capacities will probably use empties like Model S


We know 100 kWh isn't possible according to Elon. But lets look at the difference between a 70 kWh battery and a 90 kWh battery (20 kWh) using energy density from the Powerpack 2 (130 Wh / kg)

Adding 20 kWh would be (20000/130) = 153.8 kg or around 340 lbs (the weight of two adults). I highly doubt that would drastically affect crash ratings.

Keep in mind in each one of your comparisons you are making it sound like the Model 3 is simply a smaller, less desirable, Model S. Instead, realize that the Model 3 was designed from the ground up with all the knowledge accumulated from the Roadster, Model S, and X. Some of the difficult to change engineering constraints are totally gone. While it may not have as many flashy items as the Model S/X like self presenting door handles, it will be a third generation car therefore has quite a few improvements over Model S/X in addition to being more efficient in everything from the reduced weight, reduced drag coefficient, more efficient inverters, more backseat headroom, etc.

20kWh might add 154kg to cell weight, but it will add some more due to heavier vehicle in general. And that will also apply to 55kWh model as well (the more loved model due to better price).
Gross Vehicle Mass will likely go up by 170-190kg. This might change the whole structure of the vehicle. it will definitely change suspension setup. This is why Prius Prime has only 4 seats - extra weight from the battery doesn't allow fifth passenger. The whole vehicle must be changed to allow 5th passenger. Like I said, Model 3 will not be built around massive battery pack.
They made Model S. Now they will make a different platform. Exactly what you said. Not Model S.
If they make Model 3 with 90kWh pack capability, it will be more or less Model S. Pretty much the same suspension setup. Including rim/tire dimensions. This is not acceptable by many reservation holders (incl me). Vehicle is 20% smaller, but it will not be nearly 20% lighter (not all-aluminum, remember). Actually 90kWh Model 3 will weight definitely more than 60-70kWh Model S. This is what "slightly more curb weight" actually means.

Model 3 will definitely have only one structural design. Having 2 different curb weights is already a hassle. Having 2 very different curb weights is not doable any more (I'm talking about 55kWh and whatever people fantasize...90kWh..) .

Did you know that Model S with 100kWh pack failed to get the best possible rating for roof strength? Even though it has reinforced steel rails. Just because of that extra 10kWh.
Now add up Model 3 weight with 90kWh pack and a much shorter nose. Plus front passengers sitting much closer to the front axle than on average ICE vehicles (incl Model S). 5 stars is possible, but not with base price promised. Expensive materials and structural changes must be used, lots of them.

Haven't I convinced you yet??

PS! Actually, it might be economically reasonable (due to volume numbers) to have 55kWh pack in a smaller case. For example making it a slate rather than having thicker part in the front or back (under rear seats). It is also possible to have a little bit more cargo space if designed wisely. It makes more sense on Model 3 as it is smaller than Model S platform.

 

[daniel]

I have a tendency to write really long posts, sorry. Different version (with funny responses here:
Model3OwnersClub )

This time I will shine some light from philosophical way of understanding cars.

Smaller pack has to give out around 215 mile range. 55kWh pack should be appropriate from many angles:
first of all, we all know that Model S came out (initially) with 40 (SF limited), 60 and 85 packs. 40 died immediately.
60 did not die. It is still here. And there is a reason. It is good enough for many. I'm sure Tesla learned that the range
people get from 60kWh pack (now limited to 60kWh, not actually 60kWh) is comfortable for many. Even for rich customers.
To get the same range number (above 200miles in most scenarios) little less is needed for a smaller vehicle.
I read most posts here and here and I'm happy to see my personal estimations coincide. 55kWh marketed number.
This pack would give promised range, even slightly more. Why definitely not 50kWh? Risk of getting "up to 200 mile vehicle" status.
Why definitely not 60kWh? Because this will give much better range than 60kWh Model S. And who want's that?
Should I remind everybody Model 3 audience is for low-mid up to mid-class? As a reservation holder, 55kWh is exactly
what I personally would want. No more and no less (thinking about depreciation).

Ok we now almost know (90-95% probability) that cheapest Model 3 will give out 215-225 miles out of 55kWh marketed pack.
What would be the upgrade option? Again, this time (compared to first link post) let's look at it not as mathematicians.
What are the options for Model S and X? First they had 25kWh upgrade. Considerable amount of range. Now it is 15kWh software,
15kWh physical, and 10kWh more as expensive flagship. Absolute maximum that evolved with years.
Would it be reasonable to offer 10kWh bigger pack? No. It is a small number even for Model3. Price difference is not that noticeable
and same with range. Especially if we start with 55kWh pack. 65kWh is too little.
How about 80kWh? No. Definitely not. It will require lots of space. That means Model 3 will be built around huge pack.
Who will buy 80kWh packs? Model 3 is not designed to be as long-trip friendly as Model S/X. Model 3 is smaller not because
it makes it cheaper to produce but because Model S/X are not appropriate for huge chunk customers around the globe.
Maybe it is hard to understand if you have never lived in heavily populated area in EU or CH or something similar.
Model S is very American vehicle. Big and fluffy. Comfortable to drive. Like a ship. But it doesn't fit into garages, parking spots.
Ideal for wealthier people who have their own garage, their own parking spot at work. Their own private driveway.
So maybe Model 3 should have 3 battery options? 55-65-75 I don't think so. Production should be as efficient as possible.
Vehicle itself must be designed around the biggest pack (weight, dimensions). Why?? Less than 20% buy the biggest pack.
I'm sure biggest battery pack is far from top priority for Model3 overall design.

Also, even with battery prices going down sharply, 80kWh will not be cheap and not light (in 2017-2018).
And lastly, 80kWh might already push the limits of Model 3. Look what happened with Model S. From 85 to 90. From 90 to 100.
I expect little less on Model 3 (optimal pack design from 2017, aka no wasted space). Having 80kWh option in 2017 will be way too early.

How about 75kWh? That is almost awesome. But it is still way too much range. Also problems with vehicle weight, suspension,
tire dimensions. Also having a 80kWh option 2-4 years later will not be spectacular if 75kWh was available from the start.

How about 70kWh? That sounds reasonable. It is 15kWh more. In range it is like 20kWh more on Model S/X.
That is a huge step. In addition, adding front motor with different gearing will extend range even more.
Which might result in Model 3 be advertised as "200-300 mile affordable EV".
This was my guess as soon as I heard "at least 215miles with AWD optional" from Mr Musk.
And lately, somebody saw Model 3 70D. That seems just about right.

But like I mentioned in the other post, 2 different packs doesn't mean only 2 ranges. Due to AWD and rim options there will be more.


All things combined should work in a harmony. Mr Musk (and most of us) agree, that having more and more range doesn't
help a lot. 50-150 miles more range isn't helping if you have lousy charging options while having 1000 mile trip. (khm.khm 50kW)
Model 3, as a vehicle, has more priority in metro-life than Model S/X. It's also true for BMW 3 series compared to 5-7.
This means vehicle overall dimensions are more important than range. Having a vehicle designed for 80kWh pack is
not reasonable, especially if more than 50% of the sales are opting/happy with 200 mile range.

In conclusion.
Model 355 as a base - will kill all Nuts and Bolts.
Model 355D as one of the most loved version in many parts of the world (snow). As a bonus better range than 220mi.
Model 370 - preferred by long distance travelers (or taxi), more frunk space. I personally think this will be rare selection.
Model 370D - ultimate choice for mid-class customers who want excellent performance for less money than Model S60.
Model P370D - the most powerful version. Will require bigger tires in the rear. Expensive.

As a second level prediction I expect model preference distribution something like 25% 35% 10% 20% 10%.

This post, as well as arnis's other posts, are IMO the most level-headed analyses/speculations on the whole issue of battery sizes for the Model 3. Tesla has to find the best compromises of weight and range to cost, and the best fit to market demand. There's an upper limit to what is possible with today's batteries, and there's a diminishing market as cost rises. It's also worth noting that the Model 3 is not in a head-to-head competition with the Bolt. There are differences besides range. And Musk wants people to be driving electric. He's not trying to corner the market on electric cars. If you said to him "I think the Bolt meets my needs better than the Model 3," I think he'd say, "I'm glad you're going to buy an electric car." The base model of the 3 does not "NEED" to have more range than the Bolt because some folks just don't need more than 200 miles. Some do. And for them there will be the larger battery option(s).

 

[electracity]

Agreed. It'd be a very stupid business decision not to make a model cheaper than the 3.

Tesla will not have the capacity for a massive scale ecobox for many years. Tesla is building a bunch of little building in Fremont because they don't even have the capital to start constructing a second car factory.

 

[PJFW8]

I disagree. Remember Tesla's mission is to speed the transition to sustainable transport. You don't do that by by leaving out the cheap simple "civic" type vehicles.

First they got to make expensive compelling performance cars. Then they make cheaper cars for everyone. I don't think that stops at the 3 or model Y level.

But Tesla does not have to be the company to build them. EM has a dream. He does not need to own it. He stepped in because others could not see it! Others will step once the public understands the attraction of EVs. EM may move on.

 

[LectrikPower]

Agreed. It'd be a very stupid business decision not to make a model cheaper than the 3.

Zactly. They still are in the business to make money.

 

[LectrikPower]

But Tesla does not have to be the company to build them. EM has a dream. He does not need to own it. He stepped in because others could not see it! Others will step once the public understands the attraction of EVs. EM may move on.

He MAY move on. I see no reason to believe that Tesla will be some four or five car niche company. Truck, Semi, "civic" type economy car. Why not?