Likely true driving, unless, of course, you are tweaking like Jason is. But Supercharging could be different. There's typically a greater thermal load when charging than discharging. Given the taper will be different for a 100kWh pack, there could be significantly higher duration of sustained current up front. I know that the hardest I've ever heard (or felt) my cooling system running has been during some supercharge sessions.
So i'm reading this and thinking "is he talking about the watch battery?" WTH is he talking about? I'm a little slow. Great info WK057! Very cool to see how Tesla squeezed it in
I'm assuming the pack is likely to be identical to the non-P 100kWh packs now being sold. Is that a reasonable assumption? Since the cooling doesn't look to be anything groundbreaking, I'm assuming it's not P-specific.
Great work! wk057 - can you measure the thickness of the coolant loops? They seem really thin. I think I have to do some calculations on the potential design for the 21-70s, assuming Tesla has used the same coolant loops. Just to see whether it is at all plausible.
Ugh. How long are they expected to last? And how much will Tesla end up charging to replace them? I assume nobody is close to having these go dead yet. They should last for 7-8 years or more, correct?
In your opinion, what would the reasoning be for Tesla to claim that the 100D is not compatible with pre-refresh vehicles (especially considering the adapter you mentioned being needed has a part number already)? In addition, what do you think the challenges are to Tesla offering 100D pack upgrades to pre-refresh cars on an official battery upgrade program with a reasonable core discount for your old battery (depending on capacity and health).
I'm not attempting to answer for Jason, whom I'm sure will answer himself, but I would have to think that one of the challenges would be simply moving the packs--old and new--around. That can't be easy or cheap.
This is why I outlined a plan back in August. Tesla introduces their Battery Upgrade Program. Part of the program is to set a value per kwh based on degradation of your current pack and the current Cost Per kWh for manufacturing. There would be two additional charges. A installation charge and a destination. The latter could be waived if the battery was going to someone in your service center area. Basically Tesla takes your old battery, certifies it that is will charge to XXX miles, removes it, installs the new pack and charges you the new pack cost (based on a current manufacturing cost per kwh plus reasonable markup), reasonable install charge (2 guys @ 2 shop hours), and then subtracts your battery trade-in value of your old battery. This is the way I envision it with semi-made-up numbers. Purchase a 100kwh battery that costs Tesla $250 per kwh to make for a total cost of $25k. Your 90kwh battery is worth $250 x 90 - 10% cell degradation for a trade-in credit of $20500. So your bill ends up being $25,000 + $1000 destination charge to ship battery somewhere + $750 install + $500 certification fee for a total out of pocket of roughly $7000 which is double the price of upgrading at time of purchase for $3000 (so as to force people to think hard about a new purchase). Then AndyW comes along and says, here is a battery from supra that is a 90kwh pack minus 10% degradation. I want to upgrade my 60kwh pack. Rinse and repeat the same process above. And your 60kwh core is then recycled or reused as a certified warranty replacement so as to not waste it. Battery warranty is still good for everyone since only the ownership changed. I'm sure the numbers overall could be adjusted to make it more profitable for Tesla, within reason. And by setting the trade-in value at current manufacturing cost per kwh, you make the trade-in value more fair to the next guy in line. I've had two 60kwh battery pack owners tell me they would absolutely pay the above markup to get into a 90kwh battery even though it's double the cost per kwh than they would pay if they just ordered a new vehicle.
As much as I'd like to see that happen, I think it disincentivizes people to buy new cars, and to just upgrade their battery packs.
Been waiting for this for a while, Huge thanks to wk057! @Yggdrasill (and myself) called 96s86p shortly after the 100 was announced. Great to see that it's likely backwards compatible. @garsh, Lithium primary cells can be good for 20+ years with sufficiently low loads, of course I have no clue what loads they might be experiencing. I'd really like to see a mass number for one of the new modules as well.
The biggest problem I see with this, in addition to the problem Hank pointed out above, is that right now, and for the foreseeable future, the Tesla Service Centers are so incredibly overworked that the last thing they would want is the additional work this battery swap program would entail. Don't get me wrong--I think it is a great idea. I just don't see Tesla going for it.
Which is why you find a balance. As I said above, the final cost per kWh to the owner is double what they would pay if they just bought a new car with a bigger battery. Many many owners want reasonable battery upgrade path options, and some don't (whether it's because of the hassle or they want the rest of the car new). A certified battery upgrade program creates revenue for Tesla, long-term confidence in ownership, plus increases/stabalizes the value in "out-of-date" Tesla's since any Tesla could be upgraded at any time battery-wise and still be competitive in the used car market.
Well, they are going to have to get their stuff together pretty damn quick because there are half a million Model 3 owners about ready to happen. Battery upgrades are going to be a freaking drop in the bucket compared to 50k chrome trim pieces that don't line up right and the hipsters want it fixed.
Isn't that an ultimate example of sustainable transportation? We don't wan't people to upgrade their EVs, we want ICE drivers to get into EVs. Or so I thought.
ok, they will probably announce it 2 days after the next quarter ends and we'll discuss whether to cancel or not....
I follow the logic but I don't see the incentive on either end. most people aren't going to upgrade from 90 to 100, mostly people with 60's or 70's I would think. The problem is that the new battery pack at $250/per is good but the used pack can't have the same value. A 90 degraded to 81 can't be worth 81x250. It would have to be priced as used. So take a 60 degraded to 55 and give it a used value of 200. Now you have trade value of 11k. Even after labor Tesla would still need to make a profit for hoking around. I believe they operate at 25% margins on the cars and 50% on accessories. So you'd get like 6k trade in and be out of pocket ~20k to upgrade an old car that has none of the new cool Tesla features. I just don't see it happening. Anyone with 20k to drop w/o financing is going to want a newer/better car.