-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Thank you for spelling it out like this and your following posts too, especially considering your description of owning the Model S 60. Given that I live in the midwest, the range upgrade is a necessity for me on the model 3. I wonder... just a little bit, whether Tesla is making a mistake selling the Model 3 with this much range. I will give them the benefit of doubt that owners will be educated to have a place to charge it on a regular basis (some people want to treat it like an ICE, charging once a week for example), but things that others take for granted will now suddenly be more apparent - heating the cabin in the winter (how many women crank the heat up to the max on an ICE until the cabin in a sauna, and then suddenly switch it back down?), aerodynamic drag at 75-80 mph, etc. all impacting range. If you start out with 215 miles of range and somehow end up with only 100 miles usable, some owners are going to be a little disappointed.
I know what I'm getting into, and I enjoy this technical aspect of it. It's fun for me. But if I think about my ex-girlfriend, it would be a challenge for her style of doing things unless it came rated with 700 miles of range. This car isn't for everyone, in my opinion.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
I guess if Tesla makes the large battery option reasonable, say $5K or less, then I think this won't be as much of an issue. Just throw more batteries at the problem.
The other thing Tesla could do is put some innovation into the heating system. A Nissan leaf and BMW i3 (non rex version) have heat pumps after all. I was reading not too long ago, of a new advancement in heat pump technology that would allow the heat pump to operate at much lower temperatures. Perhaps Tesla is involved in this. It would have to be for both the cabin heat and the battery heater (both can be huge power sucks).
I also like the idea of packaging the more advanced heating system with the winter package to allow the southern folks to not have to pay for something they won't really need.
In the end, I wonder what would be cheaper... The R&D and materials behind advanced heating systems, or just a few more batteries that will be cranked out en mass from the Gigafactory.
Not just flexibitly, but also reliability and price.
Complexity get expensive in many ways more than one.
Heat pumps are great when temperature is not to low.
When those are to low, you still need a very beefy resistive heating system.
Resistive heater + heated steering wheel + heated seats = WIN.
Heatpumps are redundant.
Complexity get expensive in many ways more than one.
Heat pumps are great when temperature is not to low.
When those are to low, you still need a very beefy resistive heating system.
Resistive heater + heated steering wheel + heated seats = WIN.
Heatpumps are redundant.
Lets take an Economist perspective....
With Li-On batteries flirting with $100/kwh, an additional 15KWH would cost $1500. So on a $35K car, I do not believe $1500 is a deal breaker.
So why have a ~55KWH battery Vs. ~70KWH for that little difference? Might be cheaper to make all the model 3's the same then have multiple battery packs. The Gigafactory might need the additional volume to be cost effective as well. The Chevrolet Bolt only has a single battery offering... The 70KHW battery will give the car very close to 300 mile range. Based on 215+ on 55KWH and 238 Miles on Bolt's 60KWH battery.
Also, since the model 3 is two years away, possibly three, we can expect an improvement in the Bolt as well.
So my prediction/
70KWH
With Li-On batteries flirting with $100/kwh, an additional 15KWH would cost $1500. So on a $35K car, I do not believe $1500 is a deal breaker.
So why have a ~55KWH battery Vs. ~70KWH for that little difference? Might be cheaper to make all the model 3's the same then have multiple battery packs. The Gigafactory might need the additional volume to be cost effective as well. The Chevrolet Bolt only has a single battery offering... The 70KHW battery will give the car very close to 300 mile range. Based on 215+ on 55KWH and 238 Miles on Bolt's 60KWH battery.
Also, since the model 3 is two years away, possibly three, we can expect an improvement in the Bolt as well.
So my prediction/
70KWH
You slipped that one, hoping no one would notice?
erthquake
Active Member
There are no facts that support this speculation at all.
It will when the GF-I is at full capacity, not from the start of the Model 3 roll-out next year. So you are clearly talking about the cars Tesla will be producing "two, possibly three" (or even 4), years away, not the car we are talking about here...
I don't think so. The S and X choice of three battery sizes gives buyers a useful number of choices to fit their needs and pocketbooks. I see no compelling reason why the 3 would be different in that regard.
Yet another disadvantage of the Bolt design: the wheelbase is so short (102.4" compared to the estimated 113" of the Model 3) that there isn't enough room to offer an optional larger battery. GM has severely limited the capabilities of the car with that compact body style. Again, GM fundamentally does not understand the best way to design an EV and this has resulted in the Bolt having a more limited potential market than the Model 3.
You are stating speculation as if it was established fact. It is not, it is speculation. We have an announced Model 3 production date from Tesla: "late 2017". It is now late 2016. Therefore, Tesla is targeting Model 3 production to begin about a year from now. Tesla does have a history of not meeting announced dates (as do many high technology companies). However, history does not always repeat itself. Elon's success with Tesla and SpaceX supports that: two companies that defied the odds and have exceeded expectations.
Different price at the pack level... the cells themselves may be that cheap, but there is still a lot of work to make them usable within a pack. Add on the cost to build and design the battery pack, with cells, and then some normal margin but also likely a little more margin to compensate for the lack of margin on the base car, especially with the nvidia supercomputer and other hardware. I would not be surprised if it raises the cost by $5-10k. If it's less, and I hope it is, it'll be more feasible for me to afford the car.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
It might not be, if that were the retail amount. That 15 kWh at $1,500 would be the internal cost for the battery cells alone. Not the retail cost for upgrade. Suppose you want to start with a 12% margin... Then the $35,000 car cannot cost more than $30,800 to build. If the battery pack is 25% of the build cost it must be ~$7,700 or less... If the battery pack is 33% of the build cost, it must be ~$10,266 or less. Adding 1,500 to either of those amounts means that either something has to be left out of the car, or that it's base price must go up, in order to maintain the expected margin. So, $41,820 or $40,115 instead of $35,000 as a starting price. Not acceptable.
Depends upon how it is handled. A 70 kWh battery pack, software limited to 55 kWh usable in the base car, might have ~63 kWh usable once 'unlocked'. The 'third' capacity might be 90 kWh or 100 kWh instead.
Tesla has already announced they are increasing the production goal by 50%.
Maybe. Perhaps 279 miles for a 70 kWh rear wheel drive configuration... And 290 miles for a 70 kWh dual motor all wheel drive version. For many people, that would be 'enough'.
As others have noted, this is [BOLSHEVIK] when speaking of those that were Reserved in March 2016.
Works for me.
timk225
Active Member
Instead of trying to rationalize a way for a 55 KW pack to make the 215 mile goal, the easy way out is to just drop in a 60 KW pack and be done with it, no problem. Then Tesla can move on to what seems to be a bigger engineering challenge, like how to put a satellite radio antenna on a metal roof model 3 with NO glass roof or panoramic roof, just like what EVERY OTHER car manufacturer seems to be able to do.
mcghee33
Member
What is surprising to me is that everyone is trying to guess how small the battery will be (55 or 60kwh) in the base configuration. But what people seem to be ignoring is the fact that Tesla is making the MS and MX larger by pushing them to 100kwh while 90kwh seems to be on the way out.
The way I see it, before the Model 3 is released we will see the MS and MX will top out at 100kwh while we might see the 60kwh go away entirely or just get bumped to 75.
This is a really long way of saying, that by creating larger packs for the MS and MX it allows Tesla to put a larger battery in the Model 3 while not appearing to be crossing into the MS territory. I expect that the base pack will be 60kwh and I expect the largest pack to be around 85kwh. We know they will want some way to differentiate the M3 and MS and in many ways it appears that the size of the car is in large part going to be the only difference (at least from what we can tell at this point).
The way that I am justifying these battery packs is the fact that since the M3 will be using more steel in the body of the car, I expect that the weight of the M3 will not be far off of the MS. That means they will need similar power as the MS to reach the same speeds in the M3. Elon stated at the M3 announcement that "the base model will go zero to 60 in less than 6 seconds.....and of course others will go faster"
That lines up nicely with the specs on a RWD MS 60kwh at 5.5 second 0-60.
That means in order to reach a Tesla called "ludicrous" speed they will need a large pack in the 85kwh to 90kwh range. This will also allow Elon to show how easy it is to travel over 300 miles per charge in a car that is in the 40k range. That will be very compelling to those skeptical still on electric cars.
TLDR version: MS packs are getting bigger because they are going to put the same size(similar) packs in the current MS in the new M3. (with the new 2170 batteries).
The way I see it, before the Model 3 is released we will see the MS and MX will top out at 100kwh while we might see the 60kwh go away entirely or just get bumped to 75.
This is a really long way of saying, that by creating larger packs for the MS and MX it allows Tesla to put a larger battery in the Model 3 while not appearing to be crossing into the MS territory. I expect that the base pack will be 60kwh and I expect the largest pack to be around 85kwh. We know they will want some way to differentiate the M3 and MS and in many ways it appears that the size of the car is in large part going to be the only difference (at least from what we can tell at this point).
The way that I am justifying these battery packs is the fact that since the M3 will be using more steel in the body of the car, I expect that the weight of the M3 will not be far off of the MS. That means they will need similar power as the MS to reach the same speeds in the M3. Elon stated at the M3 announcement that "the base model will go zero to 60 in less than 6 seconds.....and of course others will go faster"
That lines up nicely with the specs on a RWD MS 60kwh at 5.5 second 0-60.
That means in order to reach a Tesla called "ludicrous" speed they will need a large pack in the 85kwh to 90kwh range. This will also allow Elon to show how easy it is to travel over 300 miles per charge in a car that is in the 40k range. That will be very compelling to those skeptical still on electric cars.
TLDR version: MS packs are getting bigger because they are going to put the same size(similar) packs in the current MS in the new M3. (with the new 2170 batteries).
garsh
Re Member
Elon Musk is on the record for saying that the range will be 215 miles, minimum.
Jeff Evanson, Tesla’s Vice-President of Investor Relations, is on the record for saying that the Model 3's base battery will be less than 60kWh.
Not sure whether Jeff Evanson should have given out that level of detail early. Remember Elon did not mention anything about capacity at the reveal and that was/still is the right thing to do IMO. In two years, many things can change e.g. new competition (Bolt's 238 miles), battery production cost, etc. so I am sure they will keep it till the end to decide on base capacity. Note that unlike some other design decisions, battery capacity is a variable that Tesla can continue to refine long after pencils down date.
Last edited:
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind that quote was before pencils down...
As far as investors are concerned if you magically say that they were able to get 60+ kWh with the former price of the < 60 kWh proposed pack then they might calm down and not care.
You can say that... But on the other hand, what he could say was anyway just what the current plans looked like when he said it. This was well before it was "pencils down" for the design of Model 3, so anything could change. What we can make of this is that Tesla at the time was planing for 200+ miles EPA range with a less then 60kWh battery pack. And that tells us something about what to expect of efficiency from the car.
Yes it was, but one thing we should all have seen now is that the design of battery packs for the cars Tesla makes is a running process. I do not think "pencils down" tells us that they will not add a few kWh in the pack if they think that is the right ting to do - and still match the price target.
Yes, I still guess that it will be (close to) 55kWh in the base pack (or that this was the plan), but I will not exclude the possibility that they will make it lager - if for no other reason to match or at least be closer to what the Bolt/Ampera-e delivers.
Hi, everybody. Recently, I've calculated the drag area of the Model 3 and Model S using the method described here. To do that, first I created silhouette versions of the front photos that you see below. I assumed that the height is 1435 mm for both models. At least that's what wikipedia shows here and here. The difference is only 2.9%:
Model S drag area: 2.43 m^2
Model 3 drag area: 2.36 m^2
We also know the drag coefficient numbers:
Model S drag coefficient = 0.24 (source)
Model 3 drag coefficient = 0.21 (source)
Using these numbers, here is how I would calculate the estimated EPA range numbers for the Model 3 for different battery sizes:
Model 3 trim levels likely to be released in 2017:
Model 3 55 = (210/60)* 55 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 226 mi EPA
Model 3 55D = (218/60)* 55 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 235 mi EPA
Model 3 75 = 249 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 293 mi EPA
Model 3 75D = 259 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 304 mi EPA
Model 3 P75D = 294/315*304= 284 mi EPA
I included the Model 3 75 kWh rear-wheel-drive because of this tweet.
The next upgrade in 2018 or 2019 might include these versions:
Model 3 60 = 210 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 247 mi EPA
Model 3 60D = 218 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 257 mi EPA
Model 3 80 = (249/75)* 80 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 312 mi EPA
Model 3 80D = (259/75)* 80 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 325 mi EPA
Model 3 P80D = 294/315*325= 303 mi EPA
The Model S photo is a screenshot from this video at 1:34. I recommend watching the video after 1:20. It explains how drag area is calculated. The method I've used for the Model 3 is basically the same.
Model S drag area: 2.43 m^2
Model 3 drag area: 2.36 m^2
We also know the drag coefficient numbers:
Model S drag coefficient = 0.24 (source)
Model 3 drag coefficient = 0.21 (source)
Using these numbers, here is how I would calculate the estimated EPA range numbers for the Model 3 for different battery sizes:
Model 3 trim levels likely to be released in 2017:
Model 3 55 = (210/60)* 55 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 226 mi EPA
Model 3 55D = (218/60)* 55 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 235 mi EPA
Model 3 75 = 249 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 293 mi EPA
Model 3 75D = 259 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 304 mi EPA
Model 3 P75D = 294/315*304= 284 mi EPA
I included the Model 3 75 kWh rear-wheel-drive because of this tweet.
The next upgrade in 2018 or 2019 might include these versions:
Model 3 60 = 210 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 247 mi EPA
Model 3 60D = 218 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 257 mi EPA
Model 3 80 = (249/75)* 80 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 312 mi EPA
Model 3 80D = (259/75)* 80 * 0.24 * 2.43 / (0.21 * 2.36) = 325 mi EPA
Model 3 P80D = 294/315*325= 303 mi EPA
The Model S photo is a screenshot from this video at 1:34. I recommend watching the video after 1:20. It explains how drag area is calculated. The method I've used for the Model 3 is basically the same.
Last edited:
Similar threads
