Model y battery upgrade?

[AlanSubie4Life]

Would love to see a couple of your plots for the 80 KWh pack.

I'm too lazy to generate a new model for Model Y or create a bunch of curves for varying heat loads, but you can play around with the coefficients here. If you read the posts and links in that thread, eventually you'll find a description from me about what each of the coefficients corresponds to...but it's pretty self-explanatory for the most part.

These are consumption curves, not range curves...and it is kind of set up based on a 2018 Model 3 Performance...there are a lot of variables... But you just divide the pack capacity by the Wh/mi at any speed to give you the range (if you use the full ~78kWh pack capacity, you would be including the 4.5% buffer, which you should not use...so you should multiply the range results by 0.955, to avoid getting stuck by the side of the road in the frozen tundra).

No guarantees that I haven't made some sort of horrible error with my physical model. But it's the effort that counts.

Model of Model 3 Consumption with heat

 

[Lobstahz]

With the recent announcement that the Model S/X are shipping with increased range, resulting with the S now at 390 and the X at 350 (source: Elon Musk on Twitter) does than translate into Model 3/Y batteries/range in anyway?

If the changes made to the S/X were in cell chemistry I'd think those could port over to the 3/Y "reasonably" (I'm no battery expert so I'm hedging here). But if it were due to Aero with better wheels, or lower rolling resistance tires, or motor optimizations already in the 3/Y then it wouldn't translate. Does anyone have any insight into what was changed on the S/X to increase their range?

 

[Shayne]

With the recent announcement that the Model S/X are shipping with increased range, resulting with the S now at 390 and the X at 350 (source: Elon Musk on Twitter) does than translate into Model 3/Y batteries/range in anyway?

If the changes made to the S/X were in cell chemistry I'd think those could port over to the 3/Y "reasonably" (I'm no battery expert so I'm hedging here). But if it were due to Aero with better wheels, or lower rolling resistance tires, or motor optimizations already in the 3/Y then it wouldn't translate. Does anyone have any insight into what was changed on the S/X to increase their range?

Since the S is a 100 KWh pack and the Y's is 80 100/80 * 315 MY Range = 390 mi. Simple and does not take weight, aerodynamic etc. but it appears tech on batteries may be close and they are rolling into the S what they learnt with 3 and y. Add 3 electric motors (will eventually be 4) and who knows they may be putting the 2170 size batteries into the S as well as the chemistry? Two different battery sizes adds complexity where it need not be.

 

[Aarons12]

here is the future. i heard Elon already has the patent on the Flux Capacitor. no more batteries after 2035

 

[Aarons12]

i think from a marketing perspective it only seems right that if you pay almost twice as much for the vehicle, it has longer range. i'm sure 3's and y's will be there in a couple of years and the s/x will be even higher. until the tiny atomic generators come out, then all bets are off.

 

[Shayne]

^^^^ But you will need to keep banana peels and other forms of garbage handy. Get back to work my funny avatar friend.

 

[mtndrew1]

On the fueleconomy.gov site it lists total range and kWh consumed per 100 miles.

For my Model 3 configuration this works out to 80.6 total kWh which roughly matches up with a complete recharge from empty plus charging losses.

On the Model Y the same extrapolation works out to 88.2 kWh, roughly 10% more capacity than the 3.

The S100D comes out to 110.5 kWh and the Chevy Bolt comes out to 66.64 kWh, all roughly in line with where you’d expect them to be based on known pack size.

Does this mean the Y has 10% more battery capacity than the 3?

 

[Daniel in SD]

On the fueleconomy.gov site it lists total range and kWh consumed per 100 miles.

For my Model 3 configuration this works out to 80.6 total kWh which roughly matches up with a complete recharge from empty plus charging losses.

On the Model Y the same extrapolation works out to 88.2 kWh, roughly 10% more capacity than the 3.

The S100D comes out to 110.5 kWh and the Chevy Bolt comes out to 66.64 kWh, all roughly in line with where you’d expect them to be based on known pack size.

Does this mean the Y has 10% more battery capacity than the 3?

View attachment 513505

Tesla underreported range on the LR RWD.
Tesla Model 3 actually has 334 miles of range according to EPA data

 

[GigaGrunt]

On the fueleconomy.gov site it lists total range and kWh consumed per 100 miles.

For my Model 3 configuration this works out to 80.6 total kWh which roughly matches up with a complete recharge from empty plus charging losses.

On the Model Y the same extrapolation works out to 88.2 kWh, roughly 10% more capacity than the 3.

The S100D comes out to 110.5 kWh and the Chevy Bolt comes out to 66.64 kWh, all roughly in line with where you’d expect them to be based on known pack size.

Does this mean the Y has 10% more battery capacity than the 3?

View attachment 513505

The. Pack. Is. The. Same. In. Model. Y. And. Model. 3.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

On the fueleconomy.gov site it lists total range and kWh consumed per 100 miles.

For my Model 3 configuration this works out to 80.6 total kWh which roughly matches up with a complete recharge from empty plus charging losses.

On the Model Y the same extrapolation works out to 88.2 kWh, roughly 10% more capacity than the 3.

The S100D comes out to 110.5 kWh and the Chevy Bolt comes out to 66.64 kWh, all roughly in line with where you’d expect them to be based on known pack size.

Does this mean the Y has 10% more battery capacity than the 3?

View attachment 513505

No. The pack is the same based on the EPA data file information. As mentioned, the Model 3 RWD had more like 335 miles of range; it was voluntarily derated.

The recharge energies (approx for the Model Y but likely pretty close - I drew the source data right from the EPA data file efficiencies and range, so there is little ambiguity) are here:

2020, 2019, 2018 Model 3 Battery Capacities & Charging Constants

I’ve linked to this several times already. It is not random data - it is all taken straight from Tesla (not even from the EPA really!)! For the Model Y the AC numbers are from multiplying the achieved range by the AC efficiency. And for the DC pack energy, until that data becomes available, I am assuming the charging efficiency will be the same as Model 3 at about 88.5% at 7.7kW, and converting the AC number to DC. So that is a small guess.

You can see it is all the same. There is no doubt.

 

[mtndrew1]

Good lord, that’ll teach me to try and make a contribution.

I. Get. It. It’s. The. Same. Pack. I’m. So. Sorry.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Good lord, that’ll teach me to try and make a contribution.

I. Get. It. It’s. The. Same. Pack. I’m. So. Sorry.

The voluntary derating makes things super confusing for sure. Your method would work perfectly (for the AC recharge event energy, not the actual pack size) if the correct numbers were published. But they can usually all be taken straight from the EPA datafile (after a single multiplication). Sometimes you have to back out the derating even in that EPA datafile though (it’s a simple scaling of the range result by the derating ratio, usually done as a formula in the cell so it is easy to see the right number to use).

And then you can (for now) use the 88.3-88.5% charging efficiency (taken from Tesla’s statement to the EPA for all Model 3s) to derive the actual pack size. That efficiency may eventually improve of course (if there were reductions in charging overhead), but no evidence of that yet.

 

[Zoomit]

The battery tech in Model 3 sold today is more advanced than a Model 3 from 2018. The Y will have newer battery tech than a 2018 Model 3. Cell chemistry has advanced. 3/Y are about see 3rd iteration of cell tech by end of year easily.

Cell tech is tweaked over time. The version of cells shipping today are slightly better than what was in a 2018 M3 pack. That's Tesla at it's core. Constantly changing.

I hope the 3rd iteration has a significant capacity increase. Looking at the only public data available for Long Range battery capacity shows no statistically significant improvement in capacity between the 1st and 2nd iteration. Your "slightly better" term could mean reduced variation, source material cost reduction, or manufacturing throughput, but I'm looking forward to customer-facing improvements, such as increased capacity or better temperature resilience.

Here's a plot of the six LR battery test results provided to the EPA (Ref: 2017, 2018, 2020). Comparing the average capacity of the first two batteries ("1st iteration chemistry") and the recent four ("2nd iteration chemistry") only shows a 0.5% improvement, which certainly isn't statistically significant.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Your "slightly better" term could mean reduced variation,

They seem to be setting the threshold for capacity loss visibility at 77.6kWh now on 2020 AWD vehicles, rather than 76kWh on prior years and there doesn’t seem to be a commensurate increase in capacity as you say, so they seem to have confidence in a bit lower variance in initial capacity. I am not sure exactly what drives these decisions, but I would expect these 2020 vehicles to see a visible rated range loss slightly earlier than the 3-9 months we are used to - unless of course the capacity loss characteristics have also been improved.

EDIT: A slower or reduced capacity loss characteristic would be a very important and welcome customer-facing improvement, as it is one of the big “worries” of people thinking about switching to electric (whether it is a rational concern or not can be debated, though it certainly contributes to vehicle value depreciation).

 

[smcginnis]

The Model Y is using Tesla’s patented 3D casting, using lighter aluminum instead of steel- stronger and lighter. So it’s weight may not be 10% more than the M3. Its mileage is unknown (outside of Tesla engineering) and could equal to or greater than the AWD.

 

[lanbo]

so about 77.6-79kWh when new. The test vehicle had about 77.7kWh capacity, which is a good 2kWh less than some of the Model 3 test vehicles. But there is always some variation from vehicle to vehicle of initial capacity...

Where did you get the 77.6 - 79 kWh numbers?
In case I decide to contact Tesla, what source of information would you suggest to use to show them the initial FNP is larger than 77 kWh?
Thanks

 

[Shayne]

The Model Y is using Tesla’s patented 3D casting, using lighter aluminum instead of steel- stronger and lighter. So it’s weight may not be 10% more than the M3. Its mileage is unknown (outside of Tesla engineering) and could equal to or greater than the AWD.

Since when has aluminum become stronger than steel? Lighter yes, stronger maybe not. I think Cell/pack advancements in cold temperatures would be a better customer-facing improvement than a couple more miles @ 70F. We have been informed battery day will be mind blowing; we will see. I do not think them increasing profit margins will be mind blowing to all but then it is an investors day. The option of a 100 KWh pack for the 3 and Y would be a welcomed advancement and worth the extra cost for those of us in colder climates.

 

[RoBoRaT]

FYI, under the hood of 2020 Performance Model Y, NA version.

 

[Zoomit]

The. Pack. Is. The. Same. In. Model. Y. And. Model. 3.

I have to ask @GigaGrunt, why does the Model Y pack have a “MY” part number?

 

[GigaGrunt]

I have to ask @GigaGrunt, why does the Model Y pack have a “MY” part number?

View attachment 547097

Cabling from pack to vehicle is slightly different on Y, also charge plug to pack newer design. But the modules, cells in a MY pack are the exact same as a M3. I’ve literally watched NCM pluck modules from a 3 pack and place to a pack that was destined for a Y. It’s the same.
M3 would need design updates to accept a Y pack. Being discussed as it would streamline supply process.