[Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster!

[omgwtfbyobbq]

They won't use a LSD on the model 3. With modern traction control it's a waste on an electric car. Also adds weight and is not as strong, more parts and so on.

There are some shortcomings to using the brakes to emulate an LSD. Offhand, additional brake wear and lower efficiency are a couple.

How does Model S Traction Control work?

Having a mechanical LSD may also let Tesla put more power to the road.

 

[apacheguy]

350V is average, suggestion is 400V full and 300V empty ... this messes up the simple multiplication of AxV, as we would need the time course.

Exciting thread.

If the rating of 230Ah for the battery from this document is correct, and @wk057 's data is also correct at 46 cells in parallel per group, then that implies the 2170 cells are rated at 5Ah.

At a nominal 3.6V, that would make them 18Wh cells. With 4416 cells in the large pack (again @wk057 data), that works out to a 79,488 Wh pack.

Avoid the confusion of nominal voltages and amp hours and simply use the juice from the wall: 89.4 kWh

Tesla chargers are approximately 90% efficient so I conclude 80.5 kWh total capacity, 76.5 kWh usable. Basically exactly what the OP stated.

Edit: actually, unless the EPA somehow accessed the bricking buffer, it should be ~80.5 kWh usable.

 

[Zoomit]

The relatively low efficiency at lower speeds does indicate either high friction at low speeds (rolling resistance, maybe) or AC induction.

But then the top speed is very high for a DC PM motor. Maybe either very high gearing (which would reduce efficiency at low speeds) or some sort of unique motor setup.

The gear ratio is 9. (pg 4, https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/tesla-awesomeness-pdf.240003/)

Model 3 SR will be somewhat lower Wh/mi due to its lower mass (probably ~3% ish). Also, the dual motor versions will reduce Wh/mi as well (Model S sees about a 5% reduction in energy consumption with dual motors, probably 3-4% here). Interesting question whether they're testing with PUP or not - since you're supposed to test base models without options, but AFAIK Tesla doesn't have any base models yet. PUP shouldn't have a big effect on range, but it will add a bit more weight and possibly a tiny bit of cross section - maybe 1%. These figures will be done with aero wheels; "baller" wheels will increase your energy consumption / reduce range 2-3%.

So, your most efficient Model 3 (dual-motor non-PUP aero-wheel, short range) will probably come in at around 260Wh/mi wall to wheels and 225Wh/mi pack to wheels. Your least efficient (long range, RWD, PUP, baller wheels) will come in at around 288Wh/mi wall to wheels, 251Wh/mi pack to wheels.

I'm not sure the 18" Aero wheels are included in either the standard or LR range calculations. Here is guidance from the EPA:

"Optional equipment that increases aerodynamic drag and which has a projected installation rate of over 33 percent on a carline in a test group must be installed on the test vehicle or accounted for if analytical methods are employed to determine the road-load force specification. This applies only to optional equipment or features which affect aerodynamic drag (e.g. roof rack). Such optional equipment that has a projected installation rate of less than 33 percent on a carline in a test group may be removed from the test vehicle or not accounted for. This does not apply to any feature which delineates a vehicle configuration or subconfiguration or any component or feature which is necessary for the operation of the vehicle." https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34102&flag=1
​

If Tesla expects the 19" Sport wheels to exceed a 33% installation rate, they have to use them for the calculations.

 

[SageBrush]

Graphs

These are a really good idea but I would like to make a suggestion:

They are easiest to read when y=x is the average and deviations above or below the line are proportional to how much each data point is better or worse, respectively, than average.

 

[SageBrush]

So there are three methods:
1) True 5-cycle (required for ICE, apparently not for others)
2) Derived 5-cycle
3) Multiply 2-cycle by 0.7

This is my understanding also, but to clarify: an EV manufacturer may choose to run the full 5-cycle; but if not then they have to choose either (2) or (3). The EPA document referenced in the OP has a footnote from Tesla stating that they ran the full 5 cycle tests.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is my understanding also, but to clarify: an EV manufacturer may choose to run the full 5-cycle; but if not then they have to choose either (2) or (3). The EPA document referenced in the OP has a footnote from Tesla stating that they ran the full 5 cycle tests.

Which part? Are you talking about "Range determined by using SAE J1634 Multi-cycle test procedure"? If so, that can refer to a 2-cycle test also, not necessarily 5-cycle.

See page 6. There is a version that uses the two cycles (UDDS and HWY). Then there is an "expanded" version that adds US06 into it (page 8).
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/vss094_duoba_2013_o.pdf

 

[scottm]

2. Model 3 LR usable capacity is more than Model S 85/85D/P85D.
...
Tesla doesn't want to remind people that the Model 3 LR has more battery capacity than the 75 and 85 kWh Model S versions. That seems to be the reason why they are not using the Model 3 80/80D/P80D name scheme anymore. However, I don't know how this will work because Model 3 LR or Model 3 Standard will be very confusing when they upgrade the battery sizes.

Not really. It's easy when marketing is invited to solve the problem:

The New 2019 "Extended Range" model 3, anybody? Goes 385 miles on a single charge.

..and the Standard range will just be dropped from the line.

etc..

 

[FlatSix911]

Elon is sticking to the story line ... Tesla Model 3 battery packs have capacities of ~50 kWh and ~75 kWh, says Elon Musk

There has been a lot of speculation, more recently through documents released by the EPA, about Tesla Model 3 battery pack options since the company first refused to confirm their energy capacities in an attempt to dissociate them from the vehicle’s options. But now CEO Elon Musk added to the debate and says that the pack options are “just over 50 kWh” for the standard version, which is expected to enable 220 miles of range, and about 75 kWh for the “long range” version, which Tesla claims can enable 310 miles of range. Musk made the comment during a conference call hosted by Goldman Sachs for bondholders following Tesla’s new bond issuance yesterday, according to sources who were at the event.

 

[scottm]

Agreed ... one has to wonder when they will do away with current Model S/X battery nomenclature

I think they are already positioning to do just thing.

Down to 2 batteries for the model S.. 75 (soon to be 85, again!) and 100.. cars may simply become known as just "Model S" for the low end battery. And "Model S EX" for the EXtended range.

Which would you prefer on the back of the car?

 

[apacheguy]

Elon is sticking to the story line ... Tesla Model 3 battery packs have capacities of ~50 kWh and ~75 kWh, says Elon Musk

There has been a lot of speculation, more recently through documents released by the EPA, about Tesla Model 3 battery pack options since the company first refused to confirm their energy capacities in an attempt to dissociate them from the vehicle’s options. But now CEO Elon Musk added to the debate and says that the pack options are “just over 50 kWh” for the standard version, which is expected to enable 220 miles of range, and about 75 kWh for the “long range” version, which Tesla claims can enable 310 miles of range. Musk made the comment during a conference call hosted by Goldman Sachs for bondholders following Tesla’s new bond issuance yesterday, according to sources who were at the event.

If Elon is right, then that's some pretty terrible charging efficiency. Assuming 75 kWh on the money, that would yield 84% efficiency from the wall. That's far below the efficiency of the current generation.

 

[Zaphod]

Elon is sticking to the story line ... Tesla Model 3 battery packs have capacities of ~50 kWh and ~75 kWh, says Elon Musk

There has been a lot of speculation, more recently through documents released by the EPA, about Tesla Model 3 battery pack options since the company first refused to confirm their energy capacities in an attempt to dissociate them from the vehicle’s options. But now CEO Elon Musk added to the debate and says that the pack options are “just over 50 kWh” for the standard version, which is expected to enable 220 miles of range, and about 75 kWh for the “long range” version, which Tesla claims can enable 310 miles of range. Musk made the comment during a conference call hosted by Goldman Sachs for bondholders following Tesla’s new bond issuance yesterday, according to sources who were at the event.

I am thinking Elon is just implying that the 75kWh is the usable capacity. At least that is my interpretation.

 

[insaneoctane]

If Elon is right, then that's some pretty terrible charging efficiency. Assuming 75 kWh on the money, that would yield 84% efficiency from the wall. That's far below the efficiency of the current generation.

I feel like Elon's actual statement was guidance to the sizes. He definitely did not say exactly what the sizes were!
"just over 50 kWh” for the standard version and "about 75 kWh" . Plenty of wiggle room there I think.

 

[SageBrush]

I presume that Elon was trying to reassure bond buyers that the Gigafactory would kinda sorta be up to supplying Model 3 demand, so on the one hand he low-balled the amount needed per car and on the other hand tried to show current Gigafactory production in a positive light.

It's the business man's corollary to Abe Lincoln's famous phrase about pleasing people.
In this case Elon chose to worry everybody some rather than some, a lot.

 

[gregincal]

If Elon is right, then that's some pretty terrible charging efficiency. Assuming 75 kWh on the money, that would yield 84% efficiency from the wall. That's far below the efficiency of the current generation.

But he didn't say 75 kWh on the money, he said about 75 kWh. It could easily be 78kWh usable capacity as calculated in this thread and 88% charging efficiency.

 

[apacheguy]

But he didn't say 75 kWh on the money, he said about 75 kWh. It could easily be 78kWh usable capacity as calculated in this thread and 88% charging efficiency.

Sure, but he definitely has said previously that the M3 would not exceed 75 kWh. I think we can pretty definitely label that statement as false.

 

[scottm]

If it had a second motor or generator ...

As much as I would like software upgradable AWD, I don't think they could carry a non-operating motor along for the ride in a RWD car.

EDITED by scottm: to make this sound more speculative and not factual (rumor generating)

It wouldn't be a non-operative thing.. it's for regen. All motors are also generators.

The 3 might have two smaller independent motors added up front, one on each wheel. These will be used as regen for all cars. Also helps increase the frunk space. Right now the frunk is "artificially already shrunk" to accommodate future motor/s.

This is so model 3 won't go through the drama Model S did with the "Oh my God the frunk is shrinking... and then ... shrinking AGAIN...!! But yes I want AWD and a superHEPA filter thank you very much... besides I don't use the frunk anyway because it's a hassle putting everything down and I don't want to bend the lip of hood pushing the wrong way... and *sugar* why isn't the frunk lift powered anyway?" moments. If you've lived it you know what I mean.

Maybe they start stuffing the motors in soon... and only when software unlocked they also become motors to make AWD cars. That will create a second wave of revenue as that flows in.

By "denying AWD now" also keeps the base price down as well, in line with promise.

 

[gregincal]

Sure, but he definitely has said previously that the M3 would not exceed 75 kWh. I think we can pretty definitely label that statement as false.

Well, he meant it wouldn't exceed "about" 75kWh.

 

[JRP3]

The 3 will have two smaller independent motors up front, one on each wheel.

Unlikely, to say the least, more so since there are no cables going to the front wheels to supply power.

 

[scottm]

At low speeds, the M3 is unimpressive for some reason or another - but at high speeds it's amazingly sleek, bested only by the tiny Prius Prime weirdmobile (only two seats wide in the back). And high speed performance is what matters most when it comes to range.

Could you imagine if you put skinny hard tires on the model 3 too !? Kick that Prius Prime's butt.

 

[3Victoria]

It wouldn't be a non-operative thing.. it's for regen. All motors are also generators.

The 3 will have two smaller independent motors up front, one on each wheel. Also helps increase the frunk space. These will be used as regen for all cars.

When software unlocked they also become motors to make AWD cars. To avoid crying fowl later all purchased M3 from today forward will enjoy the AWD unlock option in future. That will create a second wave of revenue as that flows in.

By "denying AWD now" also keeps the base price down as well, in line with promise.

If is true, then that's an interesting idea. I am not sure of the trade-offs in terms of cost versus benefit, though.

However, if this is only speculation, as I suspect, then you should use 'I think' or some other phase to signify that... as it stands you are declaring facts.