Prediction: One battery for Model 3

[Fiver]

The "new" 60, that's really a software locked 75 got me thinking. If Tesla has the margins to be able to offer a single battery with a software lock on the Model S and still turn a profit, It's probably going to be the same on the 3.

One battery, software locked at the low end, full realized (no lock) on the high end.

Simplifies manufacturing not just from the battery side, but also the power output required for "P" models and faster supercharging speeds would all be included in every car. Less different hardware, less inventory of parts, simple repairs.
Probably software unlock for the high end charger like we have currently on S & X.
The model 3 might be heavy on the options that are software unlockable.

Thoughts?

 

[3Victoria]

I think it is dependant on the margin at $35k, or perhaps $42, since that is what EM said he thinks the mean 3 will sell for. Unfortunately, I think full battery, AP2 hardware, full charging hardware might turn out to be too expensive in aggregate ... But we can cross our fingers.

 

[Yggdrasill]

It's very unlikely. Tesla won't have the same leeway with the Model 3 when it comes to cost control. And battery cells will still cost money on the Model 3, even if battery costs are reduced greatly. Basically if Tesla includes the larger battery on every car, they will likely lose money on every 215 mile car.

The only reason Tesla is offering the 60 kWh Model S is that they need a car to ramp up production with going into the Model 3 production. I'm thinking they will be producing cars at a rate of 3000-4000 cars/week in mid-2017, and there just won't be sufficient demand for the Model S and Model X without reducing the purchase cost.

Once the Model 3 goes into production, they will eliminate the 60 kWh Model S, and the Model 3 will be their low-cost alternative.

 

[JoRey]

Very unlikely. Batteries cost money and tesla has a bottom line to protect. Assuming that the Model III has a 55, 75, 85 battery range, Tesla's cost would cost around 2400 @ $120/Kwh if they used the 75Kwh as the standard. However if they make batteries with a modular nature and dummy modular packs. It might be possible that Tesla could easily upgrade leased cars to make a larger profit per car. Although, such a system would be unlikely is completely plausible.

 

[Booga]

Upgrade ability via software - sure. One battery option, physically? Unlikely.

 

[jkk_]

Assuming that the Model III has a 55, 75, 85 battery range

Yes please, or even 90 for the max.

*expects flood of messages stating that the model 3 can't have 85 or bigger battery*

 

[timk225]

Along the lines of the modular idea posted above, why couldn't the Model 3 have TWO battery packs? One ~55 KW battery as the base pack, then if someone wants the larger battery, simply bolt in a second smaller pack somewhere to increase total capacity to 80 or 90 KW, or whatever the top capacity will be?

With a few extra mounting bolts in the bottom of the car, the base battery could be center mounted, then if someone wants the second one as well, shift the 55 battery back to the rear mounts and screw the second one into place in front of it? This can work, and minimize inventory costs!

Tesla, if you're reading this, I'd like a large battery Model 3 with a hefty discount for suggesting this idea, please.

 

[zenmaster]

Regardless of physical battery options, they still need to be both price and range-competitive with other EVs in the same market. If they want to maximize adoption of their car, they'd offer the highest range possible, for a price, while also offering a suitable shorter range to keep base price low.

Providing both price point and range may well require two different packs, prob both with software unlocking.

 

[Sharkbait]

Everyone wants more range. Who doesn't. But my guess is that people that buy a M3 may not want to pay a few to several thousand dollars to unlock the capability initially. Perhaps having the space available under the car to easily and quickly add a 15 kWh pack or two might more sense.

Like LED lightbulbs that were too expensive for most to buy initially, they are quite cheap and common now. We're all hearing the cost per kWh of battery will be coming down. If Tesla is gambling on a lot cheaper batteries in three years or so, I wouldn't expect lots of extra batteries to be thrown in cars at a high cost in (2017) for unknown demand at little ROI for Tesla.

More important for me would be the ability to have battery packs replaced or added at competitive prices from a third party source. Who goes back to their ICE car dealer for a new battery when one is required?

 

[R.S]

I would say that even with the Model S, the software limited 60 is only a temporary solution. They might just want to test how well a 60 kWh battery might be received and if it would make sense to sell a smaller pack with the next generation cell.

But the 3 is a lot more cost sensitive when it comes to batteries than the S. Assuming a $190 per kWh rate, 15kWh of savings are just $2.850. Not really that much for a Model S, but even half of that would be a lot for the Model 3. I guess Tesla will want to keep the production costs of the 3 as small as possible, just because the margin will be rather small. The S on the other hand has a margin almost as big as the Model 3 base price, so you can sacrifice a lot more profit. The production and the sales price will be a lot closer with the 3, which is typical for a more mass market car, compared to a low volume luxury car.

 

[Big-T]

It's very unlikely. Tesla won't have the same leeway with the Model 3 when it comes to cost control. And battery cells will still cost money on the Model 3, even if battery costs are reduced greatly. Basically if Tesla includes the larger battery on every car, they will likely lose money on every 215 mile car.

The only reason Tesla is offering the 60 kWh Model S is that they need a car to ramp up production with going into the Model 3 production. I'm thinking they will be producing cars at a rate of 3000-4000 cars/week in mid-2017, and there just won't be sufficient demand for the Model S and Model X without reducing the purchase cost.

Once the Model 3 goes into production, they will eliminate the 60 kWh Model S, and the Model 3 will be their low-cost alternative.

Not to get too far off topic, but it seems Tesla's is finally getting to some meaningful production. at lets say that they do manage to ramp up to 3-4k cars per week by mind 2017, is this going to affect the model 3 federal rebates in a negative way (meaning do you think they'll run out sooner than predicted?)

 

[cpa]

Oh, I don't know. Tesla is revisiting the Model S 60 about a year after they discontinued it in favor of the 70. This battery "unlocking" might be a test market for the Model 3 battery strategy.

Maybe Tesla is seeing just how many sales they get with the plain vanilla 60, how many upgrade to the 75 upon order, and how many upgrade after delivery. There will likely be enough sales of the 60/75 for Tesla to see how popular this sort of software-restricted battery is. This data could determine whether to offer this option for the Model III for all battery sizes or perhaps only for the largest size.

Tesla wants to move a lot of vehicles. They will need an enormous number of cells. It might make best use of capital to have the low-end battery(s) with a fixed size. Why have a bunch of inert cells installed in a car that is not going to use them, when those same cells could be used in another vehicle? And I am not clear if a "one-size fits all" battery is cheaper to manufacture and assemble in the long run.

It would make more sense to me to have two battery sizes with a fixed maximum charge. Then offer a third, larger size (80?) with a software upgrade to 90 that is only available in the super-duper option package that might drive the final price to $60K or more.

We assume that the smallest battery will be 55kWh with a 215-mile range. This works out to 3.9 miles per kWh. If range scales mostly linearly with battery size, it would be so cool to have a 350-mile range Model III with a putative 90kWh.

Just spitballin' here.

 

[Sharkbait]

Not to get too far off topic, but it seems Tesla's is finally getting to some meaningful production. at lets say that they do manage to ramp up to 3-4k cars per week by mind 2017, is this going to affect the model 3 federal rebates in a negative way (meaning do you think they'll run out sooner than predicted?)

When were full credits predicted to end? I think something like 70,000 have been delivered to date.

 

[Booga]

Not to get too far off topic, but it seems Tesla's is finally getting to some meaningful production. at lets say that they do manage to ramp up to 3-4k cars per week by mind 2017, is this going to affect the model 3 federal rebates in a negative way (meaning do you think they'll run out sooner than predicted?)

Hopefully, they ship those overseas and make sure early model 3's can be eligible

 

[Kenypowa]

Perhaps it will like the Model S with 2 battery size:

85 kWh for the top trim, 55 for the base with optional upgrade to 70 or 75.

 

[Fiver]

Oh, I don't know. Tesla is revisiting the Model S 60 about a year after they discontinued it in favor of the 70. This battery "unlocking" might be a test market for the Model 3 battery strategy.

Maybe Tesla is seeing just how many sales they get with the plain vanilla 60, how many upgrade to the 75 upon order, and how many upgrade after delivery. There will likely be enough sales of the 60/75 for Tesla to see how popular this sort of software-restricted battery is. This data could determine whether to offer this option for the Model III for all battery sizes or perhaps only for the largest size.

Tesla wants to move a lot of vehicles. They will need an enormous number of cells. It might make best use of capital to have the low-end battery(s) with a fixed size. Why have a bunch of inert cells installed in a car that is not going to use them, when those same cells could be used in another vehicle? And I am not clear if a "one-size fits all" battery is cheaper to manufacture and assemble in the long run.

It would make more sense to me to have two battery sizes with a fixed maximum charge. Then offer a third, larger size (80?) with a software upgrade to 90 that is only available in the super-duper option package that might drive the final price to $60K or more.

We assume that the smallest battery will be 55kWh with a 215-mile range. This works out to 3.9 miles per kWh. If range scales mostly linearly with battery size, it would be so cool to have a 350-mile range Model III with a putative 90kWh.

Just spitballin' here.

I'm not sure there will be three different batteries, but I could see two physical batteries, one is fixed, but one has a high-end software unlock. I'm just thinking about how to simplify manufacturing as much as possible.

Also don't forget Tesla eventually will take some of these locked battery cars back in trade, unlock the extra capacity, and re-sell them. So there's money to be had there as well. Slows depreciation.

 

[pinski]

We assume that the smallest battery will be 55kWh with a 215-mile range. This works out to 3.9 miles per kWh. If range scales mostly linearly with battery size, it would be so cool to have a 350-mile range Model III with a putative 90kWh.

Just spitballin' here.

That'd be amazing, but I wonder at what point you'd run into packaging issues. Would a 90kWh battery even fit in the smaller Model 3?

Also don't forget Tesla eventually will take some of these locked battery cars back in trade, unlock the extra capacity, and re-sell them. So there's money to be had there as well. Slows depreciation.

That's a really great point. I'd almost guarantee that every S60 that comes back to them they'd unlock and resell as a S75 for more money.

 

[timk225]

All this talk about 2 or 3 different batteries make me think that my idea makes even more sense now. The base battery (55 or whatever KW) gets bolted up under the car, in the middle. No extra cells sitting idle in it, going to waste and adding more weight and reducing Tesla's profits. If someone wants to order a bigger battery capacity, either when the car is new or at a later date, shift the 55 battery rearward to its other mounting points, and bolt a smaller battery in front of it. The cooling and electrical connections will already be there, needing little or no modification. This can work, it is an alternative to this software locked concept, and there will only be 2 batteries total, the big one and the small one.

Hear me Tesla, give me discounts on my model 3 I have reserved...........

 

[3Victoria]

That is an expensive option: twice thr connectors, twice the controllers, installation time, more to go wrong. One upgradable battery is simpler, and the cost of the 'extra' batteries may not be that much.

 

[Fiver]

All this talk about 2 or 3 different batteries make me think that my idea makes even more sense now. The base battery (55 or whatever KW) gets bolted up under the car, in the middle. No extra cells sitting idle in it, going to waste and adding more weight and reducing Tesla's profits. If someone wants to order a bigger battery capacity, either when the car is new or at a later date, shift the 55 battery rearward to its other mounting points, and bolt a smaller battery in front of it. The cooling and electrical connections will already be there, needing little or no modification. This can work, it is an alternative to this software locked concept, and there will only be 2 batteries total, the big one and the small one.

Hear me Tesla, give me discounts on my model 3 I have reserved...........

Also this requires lots of crash testing for safety since the weight distribution of the car will change. It's the opposite of "less complex".