Prediction: One battery for Model 3

[Model 3]

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.

Doesn't have to be. The controller will then be in the car, but yes, twice (or more) the connectors, and a bit more installation time. But look at the unveiling event. When Elon start to talk about the Model 3 you see the battery. 4 rows of two modules for a total of 8 modules. If the base battery is only the 4 in the middle then they can add two more modules to the front and two more modules to the rear to expand the battery. No shifting of the battery needed, just add 2 or 4 modules. My guess is that it is one connector in the car for each module, both for the cooling and the power, and each module could separately be replaced when needed. Or maybe two and two are linked together.

In the next generation of Model S/X I guess they will reuse this modules system, but it will get 10 or maybe 12 modules and each module will be about 12-15kWh - or more with later upgraded chemistry.

... OR: each module in the base battery of the Model 3 will be about 7kWh for a total of 56kWh (55), and the biggest battery will have 8 modules of 11kWh for a total of 88kWh (90). And then there is a middle battery option of 4*7+4*11=68kWh (70).

 

[182RG]

As someone who plans on buying the largest kWh battery, it would be great to think that the hardware costs could be spread across the platforms. It doesn't seem likely, however, unless there is a marketing belief that there will be a small percentage of 50/55 kWh buyers. 2 batteries, like an earlier poster hypothesized.

Teslas move to derating the S to a 60 kWh was to draw Model 3 reservationists in like me. Someone willing to spend $60K - $70K. However, I'm not ready. My '13 Touareg TDI is a fantastic machine. Not ready to give it up. Plus, I'm hoping for the magical "300 mile" option in a couple of years. 2019/2020 is still the plan.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Perhaps this is all going to boil down to what percentage of buyers configure their cars for the lowest range battery and what percentage chose the bigger (or biggest) battery. I would think that gamble would weigh heavily on the profit margins that Tesla sees over the course of the rollout.

Dan

 

[Ingineer]

For technical reasons, it's difficult to engineer a modular "add a pack" system as described. Because of this, I don't think Tesla will implement such a system.

I also don't think they will place a large capacity battery and then software limit it on the "cheaper" models. On a large margin S or X, yes, but not on the 3. In fact, I posit that the 60 option on the S is a temporary incentive to boost sales so they can keep ramping production at Fremont to prepare for 3.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

not highly likely, especially if the weight of the software-locked pack makes the car too heavy to achieve "at least 215 miles EPA".

I'm thinking 2 batteries, physically. the smaller battery (60kWh), software-locked to 55 for the base model. and 70/75 for "max range" and performance models.

 

[timk225]

If a battery pack is software locked, I am guessing its charge and discharge voltage limits per cell are set to achieve that. But if the cells can't discharge fully, or charge fully, wouldn't that affect the ability to balance the pack during a 100% range charge?

 

[Model 3]

For technical reasons, it's difficult to engineer a modular "add a pack" system as described. Because of this, I don't think Tesla will implement such a system.

I know, I just pointed at some possibilities, but I do not expect that this is Teslas plan. Two different packs is probably the simplest and lowest cost alternative.

In fact, I posit that the 60 option on the S is a temporary incentive to boost sales so they can keep ramping production at Fremont to prepare for 3.

Agree. I do expect it to be gone by the time Model 3 hits the streets...

 

[WarpedOne]

One upgradable battery is simpler, and the cost of the 'extra' batteries may not be that much

Say there are 55kWh and 70kWh battery options. That is 15kWh difference.
Say 55 is 'locked' 70.

At very low $100/kWh internal cost, they are lossing $1500 per every car sold if owner does not upgrade.
This car is meant to be sold en-masse, and lower priced versions will outsell the higher priced.

At 200.000 cars sold per year without 'unlock', that is $300 million LOSS. As a shareholder I find this unacceptable.
At 165M shares, this 'free battery' costs 2USD per share per year.

Abysmal performance from financial standpoint.

Tesla is doing locked 60 because today S70 is very rare animal, +90% customers opt for the bigger battery. They are counting on future customers still going for the bigger battery.
But with 60 on their price list they are attracting those people who before would not even think about tesla because it started at $75k.
Now it starts at 66k and they take a look and find the S90 to be a better car and they buy it or opt of 75kWh battery just because.

This situation will change with M3. There will be plenty of people stretching to buy the base model.

 

[Gerasimental]

WarpedOne, if they expect 33% of buyers to opt for the large battery, i.e. upgrade, all they need to do is price the incremental capacity at 3x cost, i.e. $4500 using your numbers. This gives the same revenue as pricing all cells equally, but with the benefit of manufacturing efficiency and improves charge and discharge capability.

 

[jkk_]

... OR: each module in the base battery of the Model 3 will be about 7kWh for a total of 56kWh (55), and the biggest battery will have 8 modules of 11kWh for a total of 88kWh (90). And then there is a middle battery option of 4*7+4*11=68kWh (70).

A (more or less) 90kWh pack, mmm, I like your math

 

[Gerasimental]

Guys, you're setting yourself up for disappointment with fantasies of 90kWh Model 3 packs.
You'll get a much better car with a 70kWh battery, with only slightly smaller, but still easily enough range, and $3000 more invested in build quality, nice materials, and equipment.
Model 3 simply doesn't need, can't fit, can't afford, and won't have a 90kWh battery pack.

 

[jkk_]

Guys, you're setting yourself up for disappointment with fantasies of 90kWh Model 3 packs.

Probably, but I'll rather be optimist than pessimist and give Tesla indication on what I would want.

You'll get a much better car with a 70kWh battery, with only slightly smaller, but still easily enough range, and $3000 more invested in build quality, nice materials, and equipment.
Model 3 simply doesn't need, can't fit, can't afford, and won't have a 90kWh battery pack.

How presumptuous of you to tell people how much range they do or don't need or what is enough range.

 

[Model 3]

You'll get a much better car with a 70kWh battery, with only slightly smaller, but still easily enough range, and $3000 more invested in build quality, nice materials, and equipment.

No one - as far as I have seen - have talked about 90kWh in the base - $35k - version. IF it will be an option you can bet it will cost And I'm sure that one day - maybe not the first few years - it will be an option even on the Model 3.

Model 3 simply doesn't need, can't fit, can't afford, and won't have a 90kWh battery pack.

What some customers of this car need and can afford is not up to you to decide. I'm sure there is some customers that cant have the bigger Model S but easy can afford an 90kWh option on the Model 3.Tesla will decide if it does see enough demand for this at a price they can deliver. I admit that it may be a though fit to squeeze all this capacity in today, but I guess that in 5-10 years it will be easy.


... and I will remind you that I did not predict or guess what it will be delivered with initially. I just pointed at some possible solutions for adding capacity later and exemplified it with some not-too-far-off-numbers.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

I am not on board with the thought that the majority of Model 3 buyers will opt for the base smallest battery. I think the majority of people looking at this car will check the bigger battery option when ordering. It has proven overwhelmingly to be the case in previous models and I see no reason for that trend not to continue with the 3.

It is my opinion that range is still the number one concern of people considering an EV for the first time. Since such a large number of reservation holders are new to Tesla's and EVs in general, I think the bigger battery will be the first thing most people will want over the base price.

Just my thoughts of course. In reality, this is all speculation until the design studio opens up.

Dan

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I am not on board with the thought that the majority of Model 3 buyers will opt for the base smallest battery. I think the majority of people looking at this car will check the bigger battery option when ordering. It has proven overwhelmingly to be the case in previous models and I see no reason for that trend not to continue with the 3.

It is my opinion that range is still the number one concern of people considering an EV for the first time. Since such a large number of reservation holders are new to Tesla's and EVs in general, I think the bigger battery will be the first thing most people will want over the base price.

Just my thoughts of course. In reality, this is all speculation until the design studio opens up.

Dan

There's an obvious reason for a change in trend: the car is much cheaper so the many buyers spending more than they'd really like to won't feel as ready to dump another $2,250 on a battery upgrade. For me, $2k could be the difference between me buying and not buying.

 

[JeffK]

If a battery pack is software locked, I am guessing its charge and discharge voltage limits per cell are set to achieve that. But if the cells can't discharge fully, or charge fully, wouldn't that affect the ability to balance the pack during a 100% range charge?

No, I can think of a few ways it can be done through software.

 

[Gerasimental]

There's an obvious reason for a change in trend: the car is much cheaper so the many buyers spending more than they'd really like to won't feel as ready to dump another $2,250 on a battery upgrade. For me, $2k could be the difference between me buying and not buying.

I thought it's Not About The Money

 

[Laban]

Let's say that they manage to make 1 million cars by 2020 and that only 20% goes for the std 215 miles pack. That's still 200 000 packs. Twice the amount of the Model S/X combined.

It wouldn't really make sense to not make different packs with those numbers, unless the cost is far lower then 190$/kWh.

 

[JeffK]

Let's say that they manage to make 1 million cars by 2020 and that only 20% goes for the std 215 miles pack. That's still 200 000 packs. Twice the amount of the Model S/X combined.

It wouldn't really make sense to not make different packs with those numbers, unless the cost is far lower then 190$/kWh.

The cost is far lower than $190/kWh and by 2020 may be less than $100/kWh possibly sooner.

If the packs are not software upgradable and you purchase a 215 mile pack you will be stuck with it. The battery is fully paid for. Let's pretend Tesla profits $1000 in that case with a fixed price of $35k. ($1000 is a made up number)

Let's say in the price of the car at $35k the battery was software upgradable and was included in the base price of the car plus margins. The battery is totally paid for so Tesla doesn't lose money but Tesla doesn't get $1000 of potential profit. Let's say the charge for the upgrading during purchase is $3000 and the price to upgrade after purchase is $3500. In both cases they're making more money but having a software upgradable pack. Plus the manufacturing cost might be less so there's added savings there as well.
Yes, if a huge majority of people only bought the 215 mi version then Tesla might be out potential profits. Is that very likely? probably not, especially in the American market.

These are made up numbers but if they are making a healthy margin on the base model then this can be easily doable. Everything depends on the battery pack costs which are supposed to be the lowest and unmatched in the industry.

 

[Rocky_H]

A few interesting ideas here. I am almost certain it will not be “one battery to rule them all”. I could see a possibility that they make basically one less physical version of the battery than they sell. The Model S is doing 3 options from 2 actual packs. The Model 3 might do that, or 4 versions from 3 packs. However, as @JeffK mentioned, any software limited battery is leaving some money on the table, and I don’t think they will want to do that with the Model 3 volume, and costs, and margins. They will be building in such volume that it may make sense to go ahead and build 3 real packs to sell at 3 levels, so they are getting fully paid for all of the battery cells. I would probably put my bets at 60% on this 1-to-1 scenario and 40% on the 1 less physical pack scenario.