Have you guys seen this post from Teslarati? Thoughts?
Tesla could be using a "4416" battery cell in Model 3 and next-gen S, X fleet
Tesla could be using a "4416" battery cell in Model 3 and next-gen S, X fleet
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
My calculations indicate 295-305 EPA miles. Less than the Model S, yet still pretty good. This is of course the largest battery, though.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.
I expect something like 230 EPA miles and 55 kWh for the base model.
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
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.)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.
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.)
I'm aware of both points.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.
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.)
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).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.
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
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.
I agree, the guy is out of his depth.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.
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.