You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 am a bit concerned with a <60kwh pack. In winter, heating loads really do eat up a lot of energy. Reducing the drag coefficient does nothing to help this. This will not be a practical winter car, unless Tesla has come up with some kind of magic heating system that doesn't use much energy. Perhaps they will finally go with a heat pump for heating.
Still this news is bad to my ears. A lot of people will be buying or counting on buying the base model battery. If that doesn't work in the northern half of the country then we are going to see poor resale values of the 3 as people realize this car won't work for them. And perhaps a lot of angry owners who didn't realize what they were getting into. As a Model S 60 owner, it's a battery size that's just too small and I recommend it to no one unless they really know what they are getting into. In the summer it's "OK". But with the current supercharger spacing strategy, a 60 is a really poor performer in the winter. Most of the time I need to do a nearly full charge to get to the next charger. That's an hour or longer process. That will really kill a lot of electric car enthusiasm. The great thing about the 70D is that it gets much closer to the original 85 with just a bit more battery and improved efficiency over the 60. I understand that the Model 3 will be better efficiency than the S, which is why I was really hoping for a 60kwh battery. Then it would behave much like a Model S 70.
The base car with a $7,000 battery option fits nicely into the average car will be sold for '$42.000' number.
This is a very good way to view this. A few more kWhs of battery provides much more flexibility to everyone than the additional complexity of a cabin heat pump.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.
Also, since the model 3 is two years away, possibly three
Also, since the model 3 is two years away, possibly three
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...With Li-On batteries flirting with $100/kwh,
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.Might be cheaper to make all the model 3's the same then have multiple battery packs.
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.The Chevrolet Bolt only has a single battery offering..
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.since the model 3 is two years away,
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
Tesla has already announced they are increasing the production goal by 50%.The Gigafactory might need the additional volume to be cost effective as well.
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'.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.
As others have noted, this is [BOLSHEVIK] when speaking of those that were Reserved in March 2016.Also, since the model 3 is two years away, possibly three, we can expect an improvement in the Bolt as well.
Works for me.So my prediction/
70KWH
Elon Musk is on the record for saying that the range will be 215 miles, minimum.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.
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.
Keep in mind that quote was before pencils down...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.
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.Not sure whether Jeff Evanson should have given out that level of detail early.
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.Keep in mind that quote was before pencils down...