Model 3 to start at 60kWh

[Sonny Daze]

After pulling their original article, Teslarati is now reporting 50kWh and 75kWh.

Tesla Model 3 Design Studio will initially have choice of color and wheel size

 

[Bokonon]

After pulling their original article, Teslarati is now reporting 50kWh and 75kWh.

Tesla Model 3 Design Studio will initially have choice of color and wheel size

Inasmuch as they provided no source or attribution for those numbers, my reaction "is expected" to be... meh.

 

[jsrawa]

Inasmuch as they provided no source or attribution for those numbers, my reaction "is expected" to be... meh.

Agreed and I don't know if the 215+ would be achievable at the 50 kWh level.

 

[EvanLin]

After pulling their original article, Teslarati is now reporting 50kWh and 75kWh.

Tesla Model 3 Design Studio will initially have choice of color and wheel size

50 kWh is a pure speculation from a YouTuber. I don't know why Teslarati keep mentioning that.
Just do some simple math.

75 kWh for 8 physical modules, what happens for 6 modules?
56.25kWh, which would possibly come as 55.

 

[Sonny Daze]

After having this brought to his attention by a member of M3OC, Gene has corrected his article to read 60 kWh, not 50 kWh.

Tesla Model 3 Design Studio will initially have choice of color and wheel size

 

[vigge50]

since you're so fixated on one grammatical point, you're missing the larger point being made....allow me to clarify.

The Model 3 is ~85% the size of the Model S, with simpler wiring, and a different chassis. So in that sense, it will be a lighter VEHICLE.

ALSO...the 2170 pack will be lighter than its nominal 18650 counterpart.

But since you have to put the vehicle AND its pack onto a scale to get your GVW, I chose to refer to the vehicle's weight in the singular sense, not realizing someone would go Zapruder Film semantics on us all to basically argue what we've all been saying, but slanted through the lens of 2 words being taken in a separate context.

If you have read about the Model 3 you should know by now that Model 3 will use steel as part of the chassi compare to Model S wish use only aluminium, this should make the difference in weight less but how mush is hard to say.

Then it somes to the new 2170 cells we know that they have better energy density in Wh/volume but as we don't know the materials in the batteries so we can hardly take for granted that the Wh/kg also have improved. I really hope it have but right now we have no idea. If if you can provide facts that it's lighter I would really like to see it but if you can't, Let's wait until we know for sure.

 

[JeffK]

If you have read about the Model 3 you should know by now that Model 3 will use steel as part of the chassi compare to Model S wish use only aluminium, this should make the difference in weight less but how mush is hard to say.

Then it somes to the new 2170 cells we know that they have better energy density in Wh/volume but as we don't know the materials in the batteries so we can hardly take for granted that the Wh/kg also have improved. I really hope it have but right now we have no idea. If if you can provide facts that it's lighter I would really like to see it but if you can't, Let's wait until we know for sure.

We can provide quotes from Elon and Tesla Engineers....

 

[ModelNforNerd]

If you have read about the Model 3 ...

That's adorable. I JUST started reading about the Model 3 yesterday.

 

[dennis_d]

50 kWh is a pure speculation from a YouTuber. I don't know why Teslarati keep mentioning that.
Just do some simple math.

75 kWh for 8 physical modules, what happens for 6 modules?
56.25kWh, which would possibly come as 55.

I think 56.25 would become 60kW , Tesla usually round up

 

[JeffK]

I think 56.25 would become 60kW , Tesla usually round up

I hope they take this opportunity to round down this time around.

 

[dennis_d]

I hope they take this opportunity to round down this time around.

I highly doubt it. The 56kWh battery can deliver promised range 215mile and 60kW looks better when comparing with Bolt.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I think 56.25 would become 60kW , Tesla usually round up

Tesla did round the S70 down. If they're going to shift the S/X 75 to 80 then having 3 odd 55/75 and S/X even 80/100 would give a clear naming difference.

 

[JeffK]

I highly doubt it. The 56kWh battery can deliver promised range 215mile and 60kW looks better when comparing with Bolt.

Tesla also rounded down with the P100D as it's 98.4 kWh + 4 kWh reserve = 102.4 kWh.

I'm not sure why you think it would be advantageous to lie and round up to say it's 60 kWh for comparison to the Bolt if the range is clearly lower. That would just make Tesla look bad with less range for the same capacity = worse efficiency.

Bolt doesn't use a 60 kWh moniker so people who care most about range go off the range number in miles not the actual capacity or even the moniker on the badge. If a 60 kWh Tesla Model 3 would be a Bolt in range then I'm sure they'll do it.

I'm guessing they'll manage between 0.227 and 0.250 Wh / mi. If so, they could manage around 250 mi with a 60 kWh pack and 310 miles for the 75 kWh. (At least I'm hoping)

 

[SageBrush]

I'm guessing they'll manage between 0.227 and 0.250 Wh / mi. If so, they could manage around 250 mi with a 60 kWh pack and 310 miles for the 75 kWh. (At least I'm hoping)

Your 75 kwh estimate strikes me as optimistic because it ignores the additional weight penalty.

My rule-of-thumb for additional capacity in a Tesla is 80%
So if a Model S has a miles/kwh ratio of X, then
additional Y kWh capacity gives Y*X*0.8 additional EPA range

 

[SageBrush]

so people who care most about range

Sounds practical to me ;-)

With one important point, of course: winter driving has increased non Aero energy costs. People who are unaware or spoiled will be surprised to find their winter driving range takes a big hit compared to EPA. In a sense, this is the achilles' hill of Tesla's decision to invest engineering resources in a low Cd to save battery capacity. It will look very smart outside of winter and garner a host of complaints every January.

 

[JRP3]

Not sure about that, cold weather increases air density, which increases aero drag. A low Cd should be even more of an advantage in cold weather.

 

[SageBrush]

Not sure about that, cold weather increases air density, which increases aero drag. A low Cd should be even more of an advantage in cold weather.

That is true but it misses my point. I was talking about road friction and cabin heating.

 

[JRP3]

That is true but it misses my point. I was talking about road friction and cabin heating.

I was referring to this part:

this is the achilles' hill of Tesla's decision to invest engineering resources in a low Cd to save battery capacity.

Minimmizing Cd is just smart engineering. They put in as much battery capacity as they could at a marketable price point. Your implication reads as if Tesla should have put in larger packs instead of improving Cd.

 

[SageBrush]

Your implication reads as if Tesla should have put in larger packs instead of improving Cd.

I'm not implying anything, and I think the low Cd of the car is brilliant.

My point is that a car like the Bolt EV will preserve more of its EPA range in the winter than the Tesla for "normal" drivers. This just follows from Tesla relying on a low Cd to meet its EPA range design goals.

 

[JeffK]

Your 75 kwh estimate strikes me as optimistic because it ignores the additional weight penalty.

My rule-of-thumb for additional capacity in a Tesla is 80%
So if a Model S has a miles/kwh ratio of X, then
additional Y kWh capacity gives Y*X*0.8 additional EPA range

I did actually count weight which is why 60/250 < 75/310

There's also the energy density increase for the 2170s so likely the weight increase is only going to be between 100-200 lbs.