TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

Rumor: Model 3 to use new 4416 battery cell

Discussion in 'Model 3' started by SoCalGuy, Jul 25, 2017.

Tags:
  1. SoCalGuy

    SoCalGuy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    LA/NYC
  2. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
    I would say it's extremely unlikely. If Tesla wanted a different format for the Model 3, the Powerwall/Powerpack would use it too.

    44160 doesn't make much sense as a format, either. It means the cells would have to be placed lying down. Which in turn means that all of the experiential data Tesla has gotten from all their current packs would be pretty worthless.

    You also have a lot of statements by Tesla contradicting this, and the fact that the Powerwall/powerpack specs match up with the expected energy density of the Model 3 quite well.

    I can't think of any evidence supporting this.
     
    • Like x 6
    • Informative x 3
  3. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
    #3 Yggdrasill, Jul 25, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
    Just watched the Teslanomics video. Ridiculous. He is so, so out of his depth.

    40% reduction in weight with larger cells? 5% is more likely. 200 kWh for the Model S? 120 kWh would be *really* pushing it, with any cell format. I'm thinking we'll see a 105-110 kWh pack in the near future, but that's through an improvement in chemistry alone.

    The Model 3 pack will likely be ~400 kg and have 75 kWh, using ~3840 cells with the 21-70 format. Each cell having ~20 Wh.
     
    • Like x 17
  4. Brick_top

    Brick_top Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Portugal
    that would be really unexpected. they have been talking about 2170 cells for model 3 for ages right? didn't elon answer to somebody asking if the S and X would have 2170 cells in the future and he answered that the 2170 cell is about cost not performance?

    elon also said that there are no plans to change S and X cell format? as of june 19 this year
     
    • Like x 1
  5. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Iceland
    If Model 3 had 75kWh the range would be insane. Target of 0.21 drag coeff (87,5% that of Model S) times a lower frontal area, smaller footprint = lighter weight (despite using a mix of al. and steel - vehicle size matters more) and tires look to possibly be even lower Crr... you're talking 100D ranges.

    I don't expect anywhere near 75kWh. Maybe as an expensive upgrade.
     
  6. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
    My calculations indicate 295-305 EPA miles. Less than the Model S, yet still pretty good. This is of course the largest battery, though.

    I expect something like 230 EPA miles and 55 kWh for the base model.
     
    • Like x 2
  7. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Iceland
    What sort of frontal area are you expecting? If the frontal area is 85% of the Model S (which would not be out of the ballpark at all, and maybe even pessimistic), and the drag coefficient is ~87,5% (Musk's stated goal), then you're talking under 3/4ths of the aero drag. Given that aero drag dominates at highway speeds, and rolling drag should be likewise reduced (and even parasitic losses should be lower - e.g. smaller surface area = lower heating/cooling needs), then dividing a Model S range by 0.75 would roughly give you a Model 3 range. So 75kWh would be ~335mi. Better upgrade the S and X at the same time or nobody will buy them. ;) Your longer-range S and X numbers are probably realistic.

    335mi (or even your 305mi) would be insane (although well appreciated) on a Model 3. Where I am, with 90 kph (56mph) speed limits, those figures would probably translate to something like 450-500mi range over flat ground in good weather. One charge per every 8-9 hours of driving ;)
     
    • Like x 3
  8. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
  9. Reciprocity

    Reciprocity Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,354
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Is it now more likely that the packs will be closer to 50kwh and 70kwh instead of 60 and 75 like most are expecting. I don't think Tesla is going to have a model 3 with more range then the S. Maybe in the form of a 3P85DL, but not in a sub $50k car.
     
  10. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Iceland
    Comment added over there. Your calculations are assuming a greater frontal area for the Model 3 than Tesla reports for the Model S. I have trouble accepting that number ;) The Model 3 is a smaller vehicle.
     
  11. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
    I guess my googling wasn't sufficient at the time. Thanks for the info. I will have to recalculate. (But the error shouldn't have much of an impact.)
     
  12. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Iceland
    No problem :) When reworking your numbers remember that frontal area is proportional to both width and height. So 85% of the frontal area would be an average of 92% the width and 92% the height. Also don't forget that actual battery capacities aren't the same as they report for the pack, there's always some left untouchable so that you're not doing 100% deep cycles. If I recall correct, something like 5%-ish, depending on which model you get.
     
  13. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
    I'm aware of both points.

    (Though I'll admit I'm more interested in the battery-side of the equation, rather than the aero-side.)
     
  14. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Iceland
    I'm more of an aero nut myself ;) Was an early reservation for an Aptera 2e. It was hard to pull the trigger for any other EV after they went under, but after seeing how much work Tesla was putting toward streamlining the Model 3 (despite it being rather conventional in form), I decided, it's time. :)

    Anyway, I'm drifting a bit offtopic from this thread, the questionable claim that Tesla is using 4416 cells.
     
    • Like x 1
  15. wdolson

    wdolson Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,979
    Location:
    Clark Co, WA
    First off, I am highly skeptical that the Model 3 has anything other than 2170 cells. JB Straubel has said for years they did extensive calculations on the best cell size, trading off energy density with cooling ability and the 2170 was the optimum balance of every factor. Someday when they go to an all new chemistry, say using a solid state battery design, a different sized cell will probably be more appropriate depending on the trade offs between energy density and heat with those cells.

    Secondly, the math for efficiency is far from linear. Simply making a smaller cross section does not automatically increase your energy efficiency by that percentage (ie 15% smaller cross section = 15% more efficient). The gains are there, but there is more to efficient shape than cross section. A longer body creates a smoother flow over the body with reduces drag (a point in favor for the Model S). How smooth the transitions from one surface to another is another factor. The Model S doesn't have an antenna sticking up like a lot of cars because even a very smooth shape for an antenna will create turbulence that creates drag.

    EVs are already much more efficient than ICE and most of what you can do going from the Model S is going to hurt you. The improvements in efficiency over the Model S on the highway are going to be hard to come by and still meet the legal requirements for a highway legal vehicle.

    The Model 3's Wh/Mi will probably be a little better than the Model S because it will be lighter and the cross section is a little smaller, but the shorter body will hurt it vs the S. It would take some computer analysis to come up with a precise number, but the efficiency might be 5-10% better with a dead reckoning guess which does put the Model 3 75 up in the 290+ mile range. Which was the range of the longest range Model S a year ago.

    I expect that by the time the Model 3 is available to the public, Tesla will have upped the battery on the 75 to 89 KWH (they might advertise it as an 85 or a 90) with a range a little over 300 miles. They might be putting those battery packs in 75s now. The performance numbers for the new S 75 sound suspiciously like they have a battery pack with 85-90 KWH that is software limited. This would use the same modules as the 100 with only 14 modules instead of 16.

    Tesla wants to make sure the Model S remains the premium car and one way to do this is make the entry level S has more range than the best Model 3.
     
    • Like x 1
  16. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
    That is incorrect. How aerodynamic the shape of a car is, is described by the aerodynamic drag coefficient "Cd". The Model S has 0.24 and the Model 3 has 0.21. The Model 3 would have had 12.5% less drag than the Model S, if it had had the same front area. Now, the Model 3 has a better shape for aero *and* a smaller font area, which results in significantly less drag than the Model S (something like 20-25% less).
     
    • Helpful x 1
    • Like x 1
  17. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Iceland
    Aero drag is, by definition, directly proportional to the product of the drag coefficient and drag area. Musk has stated that their goal is 0.21 for the Model 3's drag coefficient (87,5% that of Model S). And drag area is a simple cross section - a cross section of this smaller vehicle.

    Yes, and everything else is captured in the drag coefficient, which we've been told is lower than the Model S.

    Nonsense. The lower the drag, the further you go per kWh, period. And even Model 3 is far from as far as you can go with drag reduction (see the Aptera 2e for example). However, Model 3 is getting pretty close to as far as you can go without having to skirt the wheels, give up the backseat, narrow the rear wheelbase, and so forth.
     
    • Like x 1
  18. croman

    croman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,836
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Elon's stated goals are folly for use in real life calculations.
     
    • Like x 1
  19. Cloxxki

    Cloxxki Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    I agree, the guy is out of his depth.

    JB/Elon claimed seeing 15% better density in testing in terms of chemistry alone. And the bigger diameter of the 2170's helps a bit also, let's sy 3%.
    Plus, the cells will stay upright, and are 7.7% taller than 18650's.
    We're already at 102.4kWh. Above would account for 130.6kWh.
    How do you see this?

    A 5-seat Model S could use the back row foot well. Fits a serious amount of cells. I know it will never happen.
     
  20. Reciprocity

    Reciprocity Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,354
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    The thing that I have learned is that the Cells are only half the battle. Much of the cost, weight and complexity is actually in the pack. They have made just as much progress in simplifying the pack, packing the cells tighter and more efficient/effective cooling that requires less and less space. A simpler pack is easier to automate mass production. This could account for as much as half of the cost reductions that Elon and JB have spoken about. The other half would come from the continued 7 percent per year improvement to energy densities at the cell level from improved materials and chemistry, which inversely goes directly to cost to produce the same KWh in a finished cell/pack. This is maximized by the scale and shortening of the supply chain from the Gigafactory which allows you to get as close as possible to lowest marginal cost from massive economies of scale and automation from Grohmann. In 3 years there is no reason to think that they wouldnt be able to squeeze another 20% or a 120KWh pack into S/X. It would be the same physical size and weight, just more energy dense. It should actually cost the same or maybe a little less if they can further simply the pack architecture. A new chemistry might allow the batteries to operate at higher and higher temps and still maintain efficiency and long life. This allows Tesla to go with less expensive and less power hungry cooling. In short, energy density is not just at the cell level but also the module/pack level.
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1

Share This Page