It is likely that Tesla limits the discharge c-rate based on two major factors... reliability of the fuse and interconnects and the long term lifecycle characteristics of the battery. While it is possible to decrease the buffer in those parameters to increase performance, there would be consequences. The Model 3's battery chemistry likely includes more silicon in the anode, which has had lifecycle issues in the lab. Therefore, I would assume they stay relatively conservative with similar discharge c-rates. As a result, the c-rate is likely the limiting factor in performance.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sub 3 seconds for Model 3 DL
- Thread starter Nuclear Fusion
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
It is likely that Tesla limits the discharge c-rate based on two major factors... reliability of the fuse and interconnects and the long term lifecycle characteristics of the battery. While it is possible to decrease the buffer in those parameters to increase performance, there would be consequences. The Model 3's battery chemistry likely includes more silicon in the anode, which has had lifecycle issues in the lab. Therefore, I would assume they stay relatively conservative with similar discharge c-rates. As a result, the c-rate is likely the limiting factor in performance.
I agree Model 3 PxxDL 0-60 will hit under 3.0 seconds -- probably 2.5 seconds or better IMO.
Tesla wants to dazzle the world with the Model 3. Its profit margins should be almost as high as S and X so I don't think they'll have a reason to hold back on Model 3 performance just to make the Model S look better, just as BMW does not restrict its M3 performance so M5 owners feel better.
The Model 3 PxxDL is going to be a beast.
Tesla wants to dazzle the world with the Model 3. Its profit margins should be almost as high as S and X so I don't think they'll have a reason to hold back on Model 3 performance just to make the Model S look better, just as BMW does not restrict its M3 performance so M5 owners feel better.
The Model 3 PxxDL is going to be a beast.
Last edited:
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Many high drain 18650s are capable of 10-12 C easy. Therefore, discharge rate not currently a limiting factor. I would imagine similar capabilities in 21700 cells.
Weight is not a limiting factor with an increased energy density, if anything it'll be lighter than the current Model S packs. Current packs are said to be roughly 265 Wh/kg meaning 100kWh = 377 kg improvements in energy density will mean an even lighter pack at the same capacity.
Volume is the only potentially limiting factor and we don't know exactly how the cells are going to be laid out nor how they will be cooled.
andrerodpt
Member
I think there will be a performance version upgrade on top of the Dual motor upgrade. With that i bet it will be a "Package" required that boost battery size in order to meet those performance needs. The cost will get quite high and in to Model S price territory. If they can make more money off a loaded model 3 than a base model S, then thats great! Let them become profitable. Its like somebody buying a fully loaded BMW M3, vs a base model 5 series. You are buying the M3 if you want performance in a small sedan, or a 5 series if you want a standard performing car in a larger package! You can have both cars and not cannibalize too much of the other. Things will work out like with most auto manufacturers, where less desireable models and packages go away and lead the way to new options to attract customers.
wallet.dat
Member
Between my own reservations about diving head-first into a v1.0 platform and the rapid progress made in battery technology, I'm actually giving some thought into foregoing my March 31st reservation and waiting a year or so. Sigh. I used to be so indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
Note the chemistry.
High drain chemistries are not high specific energy chemistries. It isn't about form factor, 18650 or 2170, it doesn't matter. This is an issue of battery chemistry. And weight is certainly a big limiting factor, not volume.
The current packs are around 160-165 Wh/kg (before the 100 kWh pack, which didn't change the cells at all). You are talking at the cell level. And yes, I'm factoring in the next step change in chemistry to allow for a lighter pack with higher specific energy, using 180 Wh/kg. But again, they are likely adding more silicon to the anode with an NCA battery chemistry is that is first optimized for specific energy, not power density. And silicon in the anode has had life cycle problems hence there is very little silicon in anode right now. Given life cycle issues, they are unlikely to push the boundaries of discharge c-rate.
3s-a-charm
Active Member
BMW M3/M4 vs M5. The M3/4 is faster than an M5 but people buy the car that works for them and their budget - not necessarily just the fastest.
PS. Can we stop callin the Model 3 "M3"?
My understanding is that the bigger the battery, the more energy you can discharge (and charge). The P100DL is heavier, but also faster because you can dump more power into the motors compared to a P90DL.
The Model 3 will not have anywhere near a 100kWh battery, so I don't forsee it beating the S in acceleration. Reduced weight will only get you so far, and the fact that the 3 will have more steel doesn't necessarily mean it'll be that much lighter. Hell, it could be a wash as far as weight goes. Smaller car + heavier materials = larger car + lighter materials. For the record, I do think it'll be lighter, but certainly not the feather people are hyping it up to be.
Aerodynamics also won't affect acceleration much.
It's More about economics than physics. I doubt tesla will make a car that is faster than its SPXXX
To be fair.. Do we care? How much is that car going to be? $80k starting?
Makes sense ! But it will be AWD and likely beat the BMW m3.. So I think they could charge a premium. $65k starting would be not too bad though
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Chemistry is Nickel Cobalt Aluminum don't count the pack frame ~250+ lbs in density because that's a constant.
100 kWh / 265 Wh/kg + ~114kg = roughly 1100 lbs give or take 100 lbs
Decrease pack dimensions and increase density and you'll find a lighter weight 100kWh battery pack.
This is true only to a point and that's the max C rate ... currently ludicrous mode is well below specs so no worries. You can check out any of the other faster non-production electric cars. All of which have smaller battery capacities!
Last edited:
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The BMW M3 is ~$65K / 3.8s 0-60. I'd be shocked if the Model 3 doesn't beat it on both counts. These figures have to be on an internal slide somewhere at Tesla HQ. Beating it by a full second wouldn't be bad either, as a mic-drop demonstration of what the future looks like with EV technology.
Not going to happen, even if they could make it sub 3secs. Tesla is not going to Osborne their S. Musk said the S and X will always have the most high tech cutting edge features. The 3 will be easy to build, not tinkering with more and more features like they do with the S and X.
Similar threads
