Tesla confirms Model 3 will have less than 60kWh battery option

[Zoomit]

JRP3,

You keep telling us that Randy is often incorrect and overestimates things like weight savings, etc. I am open to being shown the facts, but from what I have seen he has been the most predictive analyst I have found. Some support for your position would be helpful to our discussion.

View attachment 175441

Did Randy make this table?

The Supercharger is not standard. The body is steel. The dimensions are speculative (and likely too low in length.). The tire size that really matters is the base size, and 20" 235s won't be base.

The price and range were given before the reveal.

The important discussion is about the model and assumptions that led Randy to the 44 and 66kWh battery predictions.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Did Randy make this table?

The Supercharger is not standard. The body is steel. The dimensions are speculative (and likely too low in length.). The tire size that really matters is the base size, and 20" 235s won't be base.

The price and range were given before the reveal.

The important discussion is about the model and assumptions that led Randy to the 44 and 66kWh battery predictions.

1. we don't know yet if the SC is standard, so in a way, you're both right.

2. It is not all steel. nor is it all aluminum.

3. you're correct on tire size. the prototype made available to Motor Trend was a Performance model. Base model will probably be on 18s or 19s.

I love watching everyone get snippy over whose WAG was best, and claiming that their guesses were right...even though no one has final numbers in 90% of the areas being argued about.

 

[JRP3]

You keep telling us that Randy is often incorrect and overestimates things like weight savings, etc. I am open to being shown the facts, but from what I have seen he has been the most predictive analyst I have found. Some support for your position would be helpful to our discussion.

I think the only thing I've said Randy is incorrect about is pack size needed to get the required range, though that chart shows other errors. In any case it's quite simple. A 44kWh pack would give maybe 42kWh of usable capacity, divided by 215 miles of EPA 5 cycle range that means 195Wh/mi. The smaller, lighter Roadster was around 220Wh/mi on the old, easier EPA 2 cycle. The heavier, larger 3, even with a better cd, (but with greater area), is highly unlikely to beat that. The math just doesn't work, and Randy should know that.

 

[Zoomit]

That probably did come off a little snippy. I'm not a fan of misinformation and I wanted to help the conversation. Yes the Supercharger is unknown, so we can't say it's standard. A comment during a reveal test drive indicated a majority of the car was steel. That implies that the body is steel and all the attachments are aluminum, such as doors, hood, trunk lid, and suspension.

But again, what's more interesting is what led to the conclusion that 44kWh batteries are possible on a 215-mi car this size. Like JRP3 said, it just doesn't work.

 

[JRP3]

But I am afraid that instead of offering 60 kWh and 90 kWh versions of Model ☰... Or even better, 70 kWh and 100 kWh capacities for it to start... Tesla Motors may instead choose to offer 55 kWh and 75 kWh versions -- declaring them to be 'enough'.

As I've said previously, Tesla will put in as much as they can, taking into account all parameters, including pricing, available technology, and being able to survive as a company. A base model 70kWh does not allow a $35K vehicle and 100kWh doesn't fit into a Model 3 using current technology. Their more aggressive product ramp means they have less time to wait for more cell chemistry improvements. The Model 3 you seem to want Tesla to sell is quite a few more years down the road. I'm glad they aren't waiting.

 

[SageBrush]

But again, what's more interesting is what led to the conclusion that 44kWh batteries are possible on a 215-mi car this size. Like JRP3 said, it just doesn't work.

That is my conclusion also, most recently based on playing with the drag equation. The top group of numbers are for the Model ☰ .
A 50 kWh pack is the lowest number I can generate, but closer to 55 kWh seems a better bet.


Anybody interested can grab a copy and change the variables we are unsure about. Just keep in mind that battery to wheels losses are not accounted for.

 

[Swampgator]

Thanks JRP3. That helps.

Also to clarify a point made by ModelNforNerd:

We only know the test vehicles from the reveal were dual motor. We do not know they were performance models. The driver in on eof the videos would not answer that question when asked directly.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Thanks JRP3. That helps.

Also to clarify a point made by ModelNforNerd:

We only know the test vehicles from the reveal were dual motor. We do not know they were performance models. The driver in on eof the videos would not answer that question when asked directly.

I believe they confirmed it at the Motor Trend event. Staggered wheel sizes, red brake calipers.....

 

[jkk_]

I believe they confirmed it at the Motor Trend event. Staggered wheel sizes, red brake calipers.....

I'm not sure whether or not the motors were performance or just the appearance.

 

[gregincal]

I have trouble with that interpretation, because "< 60" for the base pack was already disclosed well before the CC.

It was a stupid question. And the <60 has really been formally disclosed, it was mentioned by somebody at Tesla once, but as far as I know has never really been confirmed (the article stated they had reached out to Tesla for confirmation of what the person had said, but they've never indicated they've gotten a reply).

 

[stopcrazypp]

It was a stupid question. And the <60 has really been formally disclosed, it was mentioned by somebody at Tesla once, but as far as I know has never really been confirmed (the article stated they had reached out to Tesla for confirmation of what the person had said, but they've never indicated they've gotten a reply).

From the start of the thread, there is a pretty clear attribution to who made the less than 60kWh comment. It was VP of Investor Relations, Jeff Evanson. Of course the details of the comment was not reconfirmed.

 

[gregincal]

From the start of the thread, there is a pretty clear attribution to who made the less than 60kWh comment. It was VP of Investor Relations, Jeff Evanson. Of course the details of the comment was not reconfirmed.

Yeah, I didn't bother typing all that out since I figured people reading the thread were aware who it was. My point is that Tesla has never chosen to communicate this in any other way, so I could still see Elon wanted to be coy about the matter. It's quite possible he wasn't meant to disclose that or that they haven't even made a final decision (I can count the number of times that marketing people in my company have communicated technical details not quite correctly).

 

[brianman]

I interpreted it differently. The < 60 base information was already out there. He could choose to say "no comment" (but with Musk flair) or not. He chose not to, which for Musk is a silent indication that he knows it's out there and that he assumes anyone following Model 3 or Tesla broadly would already know that. Then the question. IIRC, it was trying to model how much capacity the GF can/will have and how that maps to cars that can be produced without a significant GF change -- beyond the bounds of what they already planned for. At this point Elon is thinking "they already know < 60 is the base, why is this guy asking the question? Isn't it obvious that the S batteries will have generally larger energy capacity than 3?" From that he concludes, well it's easy to say the average will be less than the base 60 -- that's barely a surprise to any Tesla-aware person, and it less than the (soon to be announced) base S. That sets the mindset of relative 3 and S battery capacities clearly, and helps the modelers get the data they need.

Sorry for the ramble format. Morning.

 

[arjay]

As long as we are making stuff up...I'm guessing the mysteriously missing wheelbase dimensions and battery size/configuration are still in flux and are interdependent. These will be key attributes of the Model 3 and they need to get it right for engineering, production and marketing. Once these decisions are finalized there will be no graceful way of going back.

PS: My vote for Reveal 2 is near the end of this year.

 

[JRP3]

.I'm guessing the mysteriously missing wheelbase dimensions and battery size/configuration are still in flux

I don't think so at this point. Weren't they saying the 3's were production ready prototypes, or something to that effect?

 

[Zoomit]

As long as we are making stuff up...I'm guessing the mysteriously missing wheelbase dimensions and battery size/configuration are still in flux and are interdependent. These will be key attributes of the Model 3 and they need to get it right for engineering, production and marketing. Once these decisions are finalized there will be no graceful way of going back.

Let's not confuse what we know about the car with the car's actual design maturity. I guarantee the Tesla engineers have had a firm idea of the minimum required battery capacity for awhile, maybe a year. Ditto with the wheelbase dimensions. As the design matures, they make trades as the technical details force them one way or another. For example, if they see that the Cd estimate might be 0.22, it might cause them to consider technology that reduces drivetrain losses, or they commit to a more expensively produced part that is also lighter weight.

But the "key attributes" of the Model 3 are decided early and trades are made to meet them.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I'm not sure whether or not the motors were performance or just the appearance.

fair enough. by Tesla's "design language", which appears to be coming into more focus, the red brake calipers are a "performance model" giveaway.

but you're right, we got no real drivetrain details. these "mules" were being supercharged through the trunk, so they're definitely not the final version.

if EM is to be believed, the car is due to be finalized in "3-6 weeks", so we'll hopefully start learning more then.

 

[Jeff N]

I don't think so at this point. Weren't they saying the 3's were production ready prototypes, or something to that effect?

At or near the time of the reveal Tesla made it reasonably clear that they were still refining the front nose design and tweaking aerodynamic aspects of the design. Now it appears that the powertrain in the prototypes driven at the reveal were done and essentially production ready. I have the impression that those cars were being driven with dual motors and the optional larger battery pack.

On the financial call the other day Elon said that the overall engineering deadline was about 6-8 weeks away which probably means the deadline is no later than June 30. He referred to "9 months" being needed for production tool creation (high volume stamping molds, high volume tooling by suppliers for their parts, etc.) and that tends to imply another 3 months for final test production runs. And then they are planning for several months of inevitable slippage from a nominal July 1, 2017 start of production date.

 

[arjay]

Let's not confuse what we know about the car with the car's actual design maturity. I guarantee the Tesla engineers have had a firm idea of the minimum required battery capacity for awhile, maybe a year. Ditto with the wheelbase dimensions. As the design matures, they make trades as the technical details force them one way or another. For example, if they see that the Cd estimate might be 0.22, it might cause them to consider technology that reduces drivetrain losses, or they commit to a more expensively produced part that is also lighter weight.

But the "key attributes" of the Model 3 are decided early and trades are made to meet them.

Why is the wheelbase a secret?

 

[Zoomit]

It's not a secret, it's just not relevant enough to mention at the reveal. I think what we really want to know is the interior volume. That's something they hinted at during the reveal but did not disclose it.