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

[jkk_]

I thought Elon said in the earnings call that the M3 would have a battery smaller than 70 KWh, but it appears everyone else here remembers 60 KWh, so without going back and listening to the earnings call again, I'll accept that I misremembered.

From This is Elon: Telsa's CEO on the company's Q1 2016 earnings

Ben Kallo, Robert Baird: Got it. And the Model 3 battery? We're all analyst here, we stare down a straw dividing by you know 75 kilowatt hours. Is that the right things to do with the Model 3, or should we have a lower number like 40 kilowatt hours or 45? <SNIP>

Elon Musk: Yeah, I mean, we're not getting into any real specifics on battery pack size but I think it's fair to say like that the average battery pack size for the Model 3 will be less than 75 kilowatt hours. That's..

Ben Kallo, Robert Baird: Sorry, what was that?

Elon Musk: The average energy content of a 3 pack is certainly going to be less than 75. It doesn't really need to be anywhere near 75 to achieve the range of 215 miles. So, we don't want to get into the nitty gritty is probably unwise.

 

[wdolson]

From This is Elon: Telsa's CEO on the company's Q1 2016 earnings

So I did remember somewhat correctly. Though 50 something is below 75 KWh too.

Thanks, maybe I'm not going senile...

 

[techmaven]

This thread made me go do some digging, and I found that Idaho National Test Laboratory did some testing on EVs, including the Model S and the i3:

2014 BMW i3 Test: https://avt.inel.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact5658bmwi32014.pdf
2014 Tesla Model S 85 Test: https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact4500tesla2014.pdf

What's really interesting about these tests is that they were done at a steady speed instead of the EPA testing which has a lot of acceleration and deceleration. When we are usually concerned about the edges of a range in a long range BEV, we're talking about steady speed so I've always felt that the EPA testing wasn't real world enough.

At a mere steady 45 mph, the Tesla Model S85 is more efficient than the i3, DC consumption rate of 193 Wh/mi versus 205 Wh/mi, or about 6% more efficient.
Mind you, the EPA 5 cycle highway ratings are 97 MPGe versus 111 MPGe.

Wow!

At 60 mph, the difference is bigger at 245 Wh/mi versus 273 Wh/mi. (11.4% more efficient)
At 70 mph, the difference is shrinks to 301 Wh/mi versus 313 Wh/mi. (4% more efficient)

Very strange, I would have thought the aerodynamics combined with the AC induction motor versus the hybrid permanent motor in the i3 and relatively poor aerodynamics would have caused a bigger difference at 70 mph than 60 mph.

I use the DC electricity consumption rate instead of the AC one to eliminate the charging efficiency. The Tesla wins there too.

Now, the 2013 Leaf is much worse:
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact2013nissanleaf.pdf
359 Wh/mi at 70 mph.
On board charger efficiency is also worse.

Quite interesting.

For what it's worth, I'm guessing the base Model 3 is listed as a 55 kWh pack with 54 kWh actual, 3 kWh anti-brick buffer, and 51 kWh available. That's 237 Wh/mi on the EPA testing. Also, another WAG, I'm thinking 70 kWh for the upper model, with 68 kWh actual, 3.5 kWh anti-brick buffer with 64.5 kWh available. I'm guessing that provides 255 miles of range (RWD). But the RWD version with that battery might not be available. AWD range is 260 miles. That means about 400 hp battery power in ludicrous mode and I'm guessing the 70 kWh battery pack weighs in at 395 kg or 871 lbs. That means 0-60 times probably around 3.1 seconds.

Edit: took into account the 0-60 calculator I used doesn't really do EVs

 

[jkk_]

For what it's worth, I'm guessing the base Model 3 is listed as a 55 kWh pack with 54 kWh actual, 3 kWh anti-brick buffer, and 51 kWh available. That's 237 Wh/mi on the EPA testing. Also, another WAG, I'm thinking 70 kWh for the upper model, with 68 kWh actual, 3.5 kWh anti-brick buffer with 64.5 kWh available. I'm guessing that provides 255 miles of range (RWD). But the RWD version with that battery might not be available. AWD range is 260 miles. That means about 400 hp battery power in ludicrous mode and I'm guessing the 70 kWh battery pack weighs in at 395 kg or 871 lbs. That means 0-60 times probably comparable with the Roadster (3.7 seconds).

While I'm hoping for a bigger battery, you've been so thorough that I do believe you are correct. And for me it seems that your estimated range of 260 miles is actually quite realistic, which would be quite acceptable. As opposed to the the range based on the NEDC which seems to be out of this world and not related to normal driving in any sense.

 

[techmaven]

Crap, I should have checked the test conditions... the i3 45 mph and 60 mph tests were done at a much lower ambient temperature which means one cannot directly compare those. Looking at the i3 REx results, the i3 is definitely more efficient at 45 mph and loses at 70 mph. At 60 mph, the S85 and the i3 BEV appear to be basically even.

 

[JRP3]

I just remember some people being really pissed off about the towing capacity of the X, because one exec early on stated once it would be greater than it ended up being

Good point, but I give the source a higher level of credibility this time.

I thought Elon said in the earnings call that the M3 would have a battery smaller than 70 KWh, but it appears everyone else here remembers 60 KWh, so without going back and listening to the earnings call again, I'll accept that I misremembered.

So I did remember somewhat correctly. Though 50 something is below 75 KWh too.

Thanks, maybe I'm not going senile...

Yeah we are discussing two different statements. Jeff Evanson said on a UBS call that the pack would be less than 60kWh.Tesla confirms base Model 3 will have less than 60 kWh battery pack option, cost is below $190/kWh and falling Elon answered a different question at a different time saying average pack size for the Model 3 line would be less than 75.

 

[JRP3]

Is it hard to believe that Tesla might just install a 70kw battery pack and software cap it like they are doing with the MS70/75?

Yes it's hard to believe that they would give away extra battery value for free on a vehicle they are trying to extract some profit from at the $35K price level. The only reason they are currently doing it with the 70/75 is because they are transitioning from the 70 to the 75 and the 70 will go away soon. It's cheaper to just hide 5kWh on a few packs than build separate packs for a short time. 10+kWh in regular production is a different situation.

 

[JeffK]

the i3 is definitely more efficient at 45 mph and loses at 70 mph. At 60 mph, the S85 and the i3 BEV appear to be basically even.

That's probably because the i3 has crap drag

 

[Bimbels]

Model 3 To Have 50% Fewer Cells Than Model S

 

[ecarfan]

So I did remember somewhat correctly. Though 50 something is below 75 KWh too..

See this article Tesla confirms base Model 3 will have less than 60 kWh battery pack option, cost is below $190/kWh and falling and many others all quoting the same source.

QUOTE: "Tesla’s Vice-President of Investor Relations, Jeff Evanson, jumped in on the call between Langan and Bereisa to correct their analysis. Evanson stated that Tesla’s battery pack cost is already below $190/kWh – meaning at least 26% less than Bereisa’s current estimate – and that the base Model 3 will be offered with a battery pack option smaller than 60 kWh, like Bereisa assumed."

That is where the "less than 60" figure came from. In my opinion, Evanson, who has been with Tesla for years, would not make such an unequivocal statement without a high degree of confidence.

When Elon said on the recent Earnings Call that the "average" Model 3 pack size would be "less than 75" he was obviously referring to the average for all cars being ordered and built. Some cars will be built with the base pack size, others with the optional higher pack size (we know there will be an optional higher pack size). If the S production history is any guide, a majority of cars will be ordered with the optional pack.

So all we know for right know with some certainty is that the base pack is less than 60 and the optional pack is probably a bit more than 75, or possibly 75.

 

[Topher]

The coefficient of drag of the Model 3 will be lower than the i3, but the car will be heavier.

The number I could find for the i# and Model are:
i3: 1,195 kg (2,635 lb) to 1,315 kg (2,899 lb) (with range extender)
Model ≡: 1,428 kg (3,150 lb) to 1,632 kg (3,600 lb) (with larger battery)
Taking the lower numbers that is a difference of only 19%.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Zoomit]

The number I could find for the i# and Model are:
i3: 1,195 kg (2,635 lb) to 1,315 kg (2,899 lb) (with range extender)
Model ≡: 1,428 kg (3,150 lb) to 1,632 kg (3,600 lb) (with larger battery)
Taking the lower numbers that is a difference of only 19%.

OMG no. The 3 cannot be that light. The Bolt EV is 3,580 lbs with its 60 kWh battery. All smart bets are that the Model 3 will use similar materials (steel/aluminum) but it's a larger car and has more glass than the Bolt EV. If the lightest Model 3 comes in close to 3,600 lbs, I would be very surprised; more likely it'll be a few hundred pounds higher.

 

[Bimbels]

Motortrend estimates the curb weight at 4200-4350b

Tesla Model 3 In-Depth - Exclusive Photos and Analysis

 

[scaesare]

I think that JB in particular would love for every car to have exactly 'enough' and no more, even as an option. I believe that Elon agrees with him,

I've not gotten that impression at all. As a matter of fact it would appear that most Tesla action belies that...

 

[techmaven]

Motortrend estimates the curb weight at 4200-4350b

Tesla Model 3 In-Depth - Exclusive Photos and Analysis

I think that's heavy for the rear wheel drive only version, but probably about right for the AWD + bigger battery.

 

[Swampgator]

Elon has already stated the M3 will weight at least 20% less than MS

an MS is 4650 or thereabouts. 4650 * 80% = 3750

I predict they will beat that goal and the 3750 will be for the P3XXD model

 

[MP3Mike]

Elon has already stated the M3 will weight at least 20% less than MS

an MS is 4650 or thereabouts. 4650 * 80% = 3750

I predict they will beat that goal and the 3750 will be for the P3XXD model

Yeah, but a Model S P85D weighs in at 4,936, so that would make the comparable Model 3 weigh 3,949 lbs.

 

[tomas]

Is it hard to believe that Tesla might just install a 70kw battery pack and software cap it like they are doing with the MS70/75? this way they can either keep the cap on as if its a 60kw battery for the entry level vehicle or charge a few grand more to make it a 70 or 75kw model? that way they keep cost down by manufacturing one type of battery across the range?

It will be very interesting to see if that approach continues, or if the 70/75 option is just a temporary phenomena as they transition to 75 as the base battery. Battery cells are an awfully expensive item to provide for "free". This approach is only economically viable for Tesla if:

cost of 5 additional kWh < manufacturing efficiencies of single battery + (profit on option * % owners who purchase it)

If this is an experiment, they will be looking carefully at the last variable (%) to see if it is a technique worth using.

 

[brianman]

I thought Elon said in the earnings call that the M3 would have a battery smaller than 70 KWh, but it appears everyone else here remembers 60 KWh, so without going back and listening to the earnings call again, I'll accept that I misremembered.

Elon said that the average will be < 75 kWh. He didn't speak to the "< 60 kWh" value previously discussed.

 

[Red Sage]

Model 3 To Have 50% Fewer Cells Than Model S

I clicked this because the title seems to be in line with what I have guessed at in the past, more-or-less. But then the writer claimed Elon Musk had said something in 2012... four years ago... when it was actually from 2014 -- TWO years ago. So I stopped reading it.

Based upon a video of JB Straubel from September 2013 when he spoke at Stanford, I have proposed some rather aggressive advances in battery technology by the release of Model ☰. These are among the reasons so many refer to me as an Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Apologist Fanboy or whatever.

With the best case scenario, there might be a an increase of energy density by 53.8% between 2012 and 2017. Imagine the amount of battery cells that would have required 10,930 battery cells to reach in 2012 could be reached with only 7,104 instead. That, combined with a new battery cell design that holds up to 33% more energy per each, would mean than the number of battery cells needed for a given capacity in 2012 would have been reduced to as little as 43.3% in 2017.

Even if you look at it much more conservatively, the improvement would be 27.6% between 2012 and 2017. So the amount of energy that would have needed 9,067 battery cells in 2012 would be possible using only 7,104 in 2017. With a different size/shape battery cell that held 33% more energy than an 18650 form factor, a specific capacity would only require 85.1% of the new battery cell to be reached. Still just a bit away from the 20% volume difference that Tesla Motors expects between Model S and Model ☰.