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

[Red Sage]

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.

Once upon a time, as noted by someone else, a Tesla Motors spokesperson (who remained unnamed, to protect the guilty, it seems) claimed the Model X would have a tow rating of 'almost 10,000 lbs'. The reality is that the car that was Delivered has a tow rating of 5,000 lbs, using smaller wheels, and only 3,000 with the larger ones. Oops. Perhaps if someone develops a weight distribution hitch for Model X, then some day, it may see a higher towing capacity. But not yet, not today.

Unlike a lot of people here, I listen very closely to the qualifiers that Elon Musk uses. They are very carefully chosen, each and every time. I do not believe he confirmed 'less than 60 kWh' as the base capacity at all during the most recent earnings call. Though I admit, he came rather close to doing so.

It really depends upon how you look at the numbers. Most seem to believe this is 'confirmation' of rather small capacities for Model ☰, perhaps 55 kWh and 75 kWh. Because no matter how many of each were built/ordered, the 'average' capacity would be below 75 kWh. But if Elon expects the capacities will be more like 60 kWh and 90 kWh, or 70 kWh and 100 kWh, I believe the same holds true, that the average vehicle sold would have 'less than' a 75 kWh capacity.

 

[Red Sage]

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%.

These appear to be what BMW refers to as 'Unladen weight in kg (DIN)' numbers. I found it interesting that it was termed that way, instead of as 'Curb Weight' for the i3 variants. I get the feeling that BMW wanted to over emphasize the weight savings gained by using their Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics (CFRB) in the i3.

I found this description of 'Unladen DIN Weight' elsewhere on the internet:

Definitions:
Curb Weight = Weight of Car with standard accessories, full fluids, no driver
Unladen EU Weight = Weight of Car with 90% fuel, 68 kg driver, 7 kg cargo
Unladen DIN Weight = Weight of Car with 90% fuel, no driver, no cargo
1 US Gallon = 3.8 liters
Weight of 1 US Gallon of Gasoline = 6.35 pounds (2.87 kg)
Weight of 1 liter of Gasoline = 1.67 pounds (0.76 kg)​

Equations for Weight Conversion:
Curb Weight (metric) = EU1 Weight - 68kg for driver - 7 kg for cargo + (0.1 X Fuel Capacity X 0.76)
EU Weight (metric) = Curb Weight + 68 kg for driver + 7 kg for cargo - (0.1 X Fuel Capacity X 0.76)
1 KG = 2.2 pounds​

The big difference between the Unladen EU weight and the Curb weight are that the EU weight includes 75 kg of driver+luggage. The US Curb weight includes the addition of 'standard accessories', and another 10% fuel. If you add 10% (2.1 gal of fuel) to the DIN weight, then you should get the US Curb weight without any 'accessories'.

"EU Unladen" vs "Curb Weight" - BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums

For the sake of comparison: The Fiat 500e has a 2,980 lbs curb weight. I sincerely doubt that car comes in at over 300 lbs heavier than a BMW i3. Someone is telling a fib.

 

[Red Sage]

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

I may have mentioned this before, but in case not... My feeling is based upon two things... First, that both Elon and JB thought that the Model S 40 would be their best seller and that very few people would get the Model S 85. Ended up being the exact opposite, and they were very much surprised by that. Second, they have noted that there is a 'sweet spot' in range, somewhere between 250 miles and 350 miles and that should be 'enough' for anyone. Effectively, they believe that anything beyond that range is 'a waste' and they rebuff any inquiries as to a hoped for 'five hundred mile battery' that come their way.

This does not mean they won't offer higher capacity, longer range vehicles in the coming years. It does mean that their primary goal is to sell as many electric cars as possible to displace ICE vehicles as soon as possible. They may have thought that 40 kWh was 'enough' at one point... And they may now believe that 60 kWh is 'enough', even if it doesn't venture into the 'sweet spot'...

From their perspective, having a 120 kWh capacity vehicle is 'a waste' because it takes one 60 kWh vehicle off the road. If it were a 180 kWh or 240 kWh capacity car, it eliminates two or three cars that would have had 'enough' instead. So, if they offer enhanced mileage cars in the future, at least within the next five years, Elon and JB would feel more confident if those were the least popular cars in the lineup. My guess is that they will be disappointed yet again, and that the grand majority of buyers will always get the highest capacity battery pack that is available at a rate that makes Elon and JB shake their heads in wonder.

 

[Topher]

There is presumably a 'rocket equation' for electric cars that someone at Tesla has emblazoned above their desk. More batteries means more weight means worse mileage. There is a optimal point in there someone, I trust that they have found it.

There is also a optimal point in battery size versus number of cars. Too few batteries and no one buys it, too many and you could have made more cars. Anyone doubt that they are close on that?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Red Sage]

There is presumably a 'rocket equation' for electric cars that someone at Tesla has emblazoned above their desk. More batteries means more weight means worse mileage. There is a optimal point in there someone, I trust that they have found it.

There is also a optimal point in battery size versus number of cars. Too few batteries and no one buys it, too many and you could have made more cars. Anyone doubt that they are close on that?

Very well expressed. Thank you.

 

[JRP3]

First, that both Elon and JB thought that the Model S 40 would be their best seller and that very few people would get the Model S 85.

Source?

 

[scaesare]

I'm not claiming you are incorrect, but I've watched/read/listened to just about everything I can find from Elon and JB on Tesla (or SpaceX or just about anything else) over the last several years, and I've never come across the assertions you make:

... both Elon and JB thought that the Model S 40 would be their best seller and that very few people would get the Model S 85.

...they have noted that there is a 'sweet spot' in range, somewhere between 250 miles and 350 miles and that should be 'enough' ... they believe that anything beyond that range is 'a waste'...

Can you provide sources for those? You specifically italicize and quote several phrases, which I assume you are attributing directly to Elon or JB?

You also said you think they want:

for every car to have exactly 'enough' and no more, even as an option

.

I've never heard the reluctance to add larger options, and since the roadster they've done exactly that on every model built or planned.

Furthermore they continue to add greater capacity packs (70, 75, 90) and retire lower capacity packs at intervals. In at least one instance (the 70), the pack actually used more cells than the obsoleted pack (which had blank cells/missing modules), so it wasn't just a matter of using the same number of cells with a higher capacity. As the new packs actually used more cells, it would in effect be taking "other cars off the road", and yet they did so.

Again these actions seem to belie the claim that they would rather not offer cars with more range. There was already an 85 that hit the "sweetspot" so, why upgrade the 60 to a 70?

 

[Red Sage]

Source?

God. Really? They only said this, like, thousands of times... Check YouTube videos from the original unveiling of the Model S Alpha Prototype through the decision around mid 2013 when the decision was made to axe the Model S 40.

 

[JRP3]

Sorry, you made a claim that at least two of us question, you need to provide some proof. I've been following Tesla for quite a while and I don't remember what you are claiming. I could be wrong, but you need to show some examples. Plus, even if true, you assume that they don't change their views over time, which we know is not the case.

 

[JRP3]

For example: Elon Musk on Twitter

Elon says larger pack upgrades to existing vehicles will happen.

 

[scaesare]

Surprised by the relatively low (~4% IIRC) takeup of the 40? Yes. Lots of discussion about that.

Expectation that the 40 would be the best-seller? I also don't recall that being the case... and Google doesn't seem to provide anything to that effect that I could easily find.

 

[EVNow]

I may have mentioned this before, but in case not... My feeling is based upon two things... First, that both Elon and JB thought that the Model S 40 would be their best seller and that very few people would get the Model S 85. Ended up being the exact opposite, and they were very much surprised by that.

If they thought S40 would be the best seller - they certainly made sure that wouldn't be the case by crippling it (by not offering SC). This is the reason I didn't get a S40.

 

[Red Sage]

If they thought S40 would be the best seller - they certainly made sure that wouldn't be the case by crippling it (by not offering SC). This is the reason I didn't get a S40.

As I understood it, Supercharger access was not offered for the Model S 40 for two reasons: 1) The 40 kWh battery pack would not have been able to handle the voltage; and 2) The range would not have been enough to span the expected minimum distance between Superchargers comfortably. The decision was made before it was decided to make the Model S 40 a range limited 60 kWh battery pack. They certainly could have made the actual release of Model S 40 with optional Supercharger access, but decided that it should be upgraded to the full 60 kWh capacity first.

Tesla Motors thought that people would just want to use the Model S 40 as an 'around town' car to be charged at home or at work. They thought that anyone who hoped to do road trips would simply get the Model S 60 or Model S 85 instead. They believed the Model S 40 should be offered for the sake of those who wanted to drive electric as economically as possible. Having a much greater range than a Nissan LEAF, Mitsubishi iMiEV, or Ford Focus Electric, a Model S 40 would have been a lot more convenient to own despite the price difference.

It turned out that when it came to Model S, having greater range -- and Supercharger access -- was more important to Customers than saving money on the purchase price.

 

[malcolm]

But the 40 was an (unsuccessful) example of Tesla's determination to break segmentation; building cars which look like they fit within existing, narrow ICE model categories but can display abilities which don't.

The most arresting example of this is, of course, a sedan that looks like a sedate grand tourer but can act completely Insane. Or Ludicrous.

I hope/expect Part Two will feature more automotive schizophrenia.

 

[Red Sage]

Surprised by the relatively low (~4% IIRC) takeup of the 40? Yes. Lots of discussion about that.

Expectation that the 40 would be the best-seller? I also don't recall that being the case... and Google doesn't seem to provide anything to that effect that I could easily find.

OK. I remember an interview with Elon Musk where, if I recall correctly, he stated they had expected the exact reverse of order distribution. Meaning, the Model S 60 would have the same percentage as it received ~25%-to-30%... The Model S 40 would be their best seller... And the Model S 85 would be less than 10% of their sales. I'll post a link to that once I find it, but I sort of remember it was either Reuters or CNN that he told that to during 2013, if not both of them.

 

[JRP3]

Pretty sure their business plan wouldn't have worked if the most popular model was their least profitable model, i.e. the 40. I think you've remembered incorrectly or drastically misinterpreted something.

 

[scaesare]

OK. I remember an interview with Elon Musk where, if I recall correctly, he stated they had expected the exact reverse of order distribution. Meaning, the Model S 60 would have the same percentage as it received ~25%-to-30%... The Model S 40 would be their best seller... And the Model S 85 would be less than 10% of their sales. I'll post a link to that once I find it, but I sort of remember it was either Reuters or CNN that he told that to during 2013, if not both of them.

Certainly lots of what was "known" at the time is tribal knowledge, given Elon's propensity to talk rather openly about things during appearances... so I suppose that may have been the case. If you find it, I'd be interested in seeing it.

The 2013 timing you mention would seem odd though... the Model S's were actually already hitting the streets in numbers by 2013... and reservations began in 2010 I believe... they would have certainly known that the 85's were by far the most popular model by that time. Unless he was just sharing some historical perspective...

 

[gregincal]

Certainly lots of what was "known" at the time is tribal knowledge, given Elon's propensity to talk rather openly about things during appearances... so I suppose that may have been the case. If you find it, I'd be interested in seeing it.

The 2013 timing you mention would seem odd though... the Model S's were actually already hitting the streets in numbers by 2013... and reservations began in 2010 I believe... they would have certainly known that the 85's were by far the most popular model by that time. Unless he was just sharing some historical perspective...

Until people configured they would have no idea which Model they wanted. Configuration of non-signature Model S cars didn't start until late 2012.

 

[scaesare]

Until people configured they would have no idea which Model they wanted. Configuration of non-signature Model S cars didn't start until late 2012.

I would have expected them to have some idea earlier on, but certainly by 2013 they would have known...

 

[Az_Rael]

In the end Elon referred to the 40kW model as a "hobbled horse". My suspicion was the 40kW model was only there to meet the "under $50k" claims they had been making for so long. The Engadget Interview: Tesla's Elon Musk promises more Superchargers, better service, cheaper EVs that don't suck