Hear me out now.
Apart from being cheaper to produce (/kWh) the new 2170 cells will allow for more capaciy in a given pack size. 40% more than the 2012 85kWh pack, according to JB Straubel. And that may well be without the extra utilization of 5mm head space through the longer cells. So, close to 50%. 125kWh-130kWh seems to very much be within the realm of possibility.
Already it seems the latest (last) 18650 pack upgrade to 100kWh seems to "pack" more capacity than the increase from 85 and 90 would suggest. No more overstated battery capacities for Tesla? That would be good.
Now there have been quotes by Elon that 100kWh would be the limit. But would that be referring to 18650's to keep comeptitors none the wiser? Surely the way Tesla seems to keep Model S and X high priced (really high margin, especially the long range specs), it would be a good thing to demolish the competition with a 125kWh car? Much harder for the competition to match that for range. Say if Mercedes were to offer a similar sized car, and not needlessly chique to at least sell more than a few, their higher cost/kWh not having theirr own gigafactory, would make it difficult or impossible to compete at the same price level without making a loss, while Tesla are actually at a high margin. Tesla COULD easily, if they pleased, offer the first 125kWh pack for the current 100kWh price, and not lose a dollar of margin, even be up on the change.
What advantage could limiting themselves to 100kWh hold?
In case of slow production, more cars to be build, no battery delays.
Perhaps having ample space around the cells for optimal cooling? Not going done to, say, 14 modules in stead of 16, but having 16 sub-maximum capacity modules?
Or, would they vastly under-claim the capacity so that charging takes places within very big safety margins to ensure the longuevity to the pack? They could they make extra range available at a supercharger (proper balancing) or when out of juice (bad weather, or stupid driver) for a nominal fee. Imagine you mess up and end up stranding your S100(2170). It would have 10kWh of extra capacity left to get you to a charger, in a valet/limping mode of sorts to ensure it works out and damages the battery to a minimum.
And if one would be facing a long SuC leap, or driving in high-consumption conditions (towing in case of X until S gets it), a maximum number of times per year a one-time upgrade could be allowed to charge to 15kWh extra. The 10kWh at the bottom being a separate "charge" possibly. Or making it a 125kWh for one, or for a day.
If supercharging becomes possible only to 80-90% of a nominal charge level to ensure people don't waste time occupying stalls (until cars can auto-park themselves after a snake disconnect), such a one-time payment could unlock maximum range, and SuC to that level, and well beyond.
All nice theory, but I doubt Tesla would stick 25% more cells in there then they really need. A 60(75) style arrangement seems more logical. 100(125) would be proportionate to that actually.
What motive would Tesla have to NOT offer a 430-440 mile EPA range Model S when technically and financially, they can? It's their agenda to prove to the world that BEV's don't limit the driver, right? And why not make the most out of the giga investment to make your own cells, let alone market leading ones, if you're not going to even explore their advantages beyond margin optimization?
Will 90 and 100 owners be pissed when the 125 is introduced, even at the old price level? Yes, but they could see it coming for years. As Tesla improves their Fremont throughput, not only for Model 3 fus also S&X, why not make the high margin cars as attractive as possible? Better sell an S125 than an extra Powerpack, surely? See how cheap Powerwalls are already with 18650 cells. 14kWh for $5500 including a converter. They can make a megarange BEV that demolished te competition 5-10 years into the future. Why wouldn't they?
Discuss!
