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

[Red Sage]

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...

As I remember, the Model S had around 10,000 Reservations before the first of them were Delivered in June 2012. Around 2,600 of those had been Delivered through December 2012. But by January 2013 Tesla Motors had 13,000 outstanding Reservations, instead of only about 7,400. By mid 2013, despite increasing Reservations, the majority of buyers were all asking for the Model S 85. And not even 5% of the entire group of Reservation holders were asking for the Model S 40. So, from June 2012 through April/May/June 2013, Tesla Motors gained at least 50% more buyers of Model S overall, but they didn't have 6%-to-8% of them requesting the Model S 40 -- it actually dropped to 4% or so. Elon Musk took that as a sign from Consumers: They wanted 200 miles of range minimum, or bust.

Entry Level 40kWh Tesla Model S Cancelled, 60 kWh Cars All Get Supercharging Hardware - Inside EVs

 

[Red Sage]

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

At the Tesla Motors forums Pungoteague_Dave has consistently stated the only reason the Model S 40 was offered was to meet a requirement of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program for a certain base cost. Once Tesla Motors paid pack that loan in full, they were able to drop the dead weight from their roster and continue offering more profitable versions instead. He doesn't believe the 'spin' that Tesla Motors related regarding the situation, neither the limited orders for that variant, nor the 'paying off early' points of views.

 

[scaesare]

As I remember, the Model S had around 10,000 Reservations before the first of them were Delivered in June 2012. Around 2,600 of those had been Delivered through December 2012. But by January 2013 Tesla Motors had 13,000 outstanding Reservations, instead of only about 7,400. By mid 2013, despite increasing Reservations, the majority of buyers were all asking for the Model S 85. And not even 5% of the entire group of Reservation holders were asking for the Model S 40. So, from June 2012 through April/May/June 2013, Tesla Motors gained at least 50% more buyers of Model S overall, but they didn't have 6%-to-8% of them requesting the Model S 40 -- it actually dropped to 4% or so. Elon Musk took that as a sign from Consumers: They wanted 200 miles of range minimum, or bust.

Entry Level 40kWh Tesla Model S Cancelled, 60 kWh Cars All Get Supercharging Hardware - Inside EVs

That's pretty much how I remember it.

None of which supports the assertion that they thought the 40 would be the best seller prior to that, however. Nor that Elon and JB's preference is that they only want to supply cars with the absolute minimum range necessary.

 

[scaesare]

At the Tesla Motors forums Pungoteague_Dave has consistently stated the only reason the Model S 40 was offered was to meet a requirement of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program for a certain base cost. Once Tesla Motors paid pack that loan in full, they were able to drop the dead weight from their roster and continue offering more profitable versions instead. He doesn't believe the 'spin' that Tesla Motors related regarding the situation, neither the limited orders for that variant, nor the 'paying off early' points of views.

If this is true, I suggest it argues AGAINST the idea they thought the 40 would be the best seller...

 

[EVNow]

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.

Yes - I remember all the excuses people were giving why 40 won't have SC.

No Supercharging for 40Kwh :(

In hindsight, I think your 2nd reason is what I've always thought to be the reason why they decided not to offer it. The same reason I've been confident 3 will have 200 mile range.

 

[SageBrush]

In hindsight, I think your 2nd reason is what I've always thought to be the reason why they decided not to offer it. The same reason I've been confident 3 will have 200 mile range.

A 40 kWh pack in a Model S would be a degraded customer experience for long distance travel. So while possible if the car supported SC, Tesla did not want to endorse (and be open to criticism for) that setup.

 

[cokata]

I see a major flaw with this. Cold weather doesn't care about aerodynamics, neither does snow. Elon said it would have a real world highway range of at least 200 miles, even in cold with climate control on. Hopefully the larger capacity option is big enough to accomplish that.

Actually in cold weather aero performance is even more important as the air is thicker. Yes speeds are lower on average, but there is no reason to assume that a more efficient car with a smaller battery will do worse than a less efficient one with a bigger battery once cold weather and snow come into the equation.

 

[SageBrush]

but there is no reason to assume that a more efficient car with a smaller battery will do worse than a less efficient one

I can think of three good reasons off the top of my head:

1. More friction of internal moving parts
2. More road friction
3. Cabin heating

 

[JeffK]

I can think of three good reasons off the top of my head:

1. More friction of internal moving parts
2. More road friction
3. Cabin heating

Out of your three only the cabin heating is valid... numbers 1 and 2 are both arguments for a more efficient car with a smaller battery would do better than a less efficient car with a bigger battery.

 

[Red Sage]

That's pretty much how I remember it.

None of which supports the assertion that they thought the 40 would be the best seller prior to that, however. Nor that Elon and JB's preference is that they only want to supply cars with the absolute minimum range necessary.

If you say so. So far I haven't come across the videos I was looking for... Amazingly, it seems that Reuters and Bloomberg have purged their YouTube pages of a lot of Tesla Motors/Elon Musk content.

 

[Red Sage]

If this is true, I suggest it argues AGAINST the idea they thought the 40 would be the best seller...

Once again, that was Pungoteague_Dave's argument and opinion -- contrary to mine, as usual.

 

[SageBrush]

Out of your three only the cabin heating is valid... numbers 1 and 2 are both arguments for a more efficient car with a smaller battery would do better than a less efficient car with a bigger battery.

The Tesla's M3 better efficiency is mostly (almost all ?) due to the lower Cd. The items I mentioned increase the relative weighting of non Aero related friction losses and thus put the smaller battery at a disadvantage.

 

[JeffK]

I'm not seeing why a more efficient car with a smaller battery would have more road friction or friction of moving parts vs a less efficient car with a larger battery pack.

In addition, the energy needed to accelerate the weight of the less efficient car with the heavier pack is greater.

In the winter once the parts get moving such as motor bearings etc, they will quickly warm up to operating temperatures. I wouldn't worry about fiction of moving parts. If you aren't using winter tires you have less road friction in the winter, not more. So, both the arguments make no sense.

The less efficient car needs a bigger battery just to have the same range as the more efficient car with the smaller battery. If both cars were equal then sure, a bigger battery will yield a longer range but that's not the case with this scenario because they're different cars.

If both cars are rated for a certain range then it's likely they'll still get similar diminished range in the winter. The smaller battery is not necessarily at a disadvantage when in a more efficient car.

 

[JRP3]

If you say so. So far I haven't come across the videos I was looking for... Amazingly, it seems that Reuters and Bloomberg have purged their YouTube pages of a lot of Tesla Motors/Elon Musk content.

Once again, that was Pungoteague_Dave's argument and opinion -- contrary to mine, as usual.

So nothing to support your claims, and all available evidence disagrees with your position, as do many of our recollections.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm not seeing why a more efficient car with a smaller battery would have more road friction or friction of moving parts vs a less efficient car with a larger battery pack.

I don't either ;-)

My point is that overall energy/mile goes up for all cars in the winter for multiple reasons, and most of them are not mitigated by a low Cd

 

[gregincal]

Out of your three only the cabin heating is valid... numbers 1 and 2 are both arguments for a more efficient car with a smaller battery would do better than a less efficient car with a bigger battery.

Cabin heating and especially battery heating take a really large amount of energy in the cold. The amount of energy is probably about the same for the Model S and 3, so will have a larger impact on the smaller battery car.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Out of your three only the cabin heating is valid... numbers 1 and 2 are both arguments for a more efficient car with a smaller battery would do better than a less efficient car with a bigger battery.

I can kind of see his point. He is saying those factors will negatively affect all cars. Even if Tesla made the car with a smaller battery / more efficient, the cold will still affect that car in that way. Friction of parts increase, and the cold will increase rolling resistance of the tires. These may not be as significant, but it still exists.

The heavier car with a bigger battery may be able to offset that more than the efficiency penalty.

 

[badbot]

once they produce a few cars to production specs. they will try s few sizes and see what it needs to meet range requirements.
the new motors and transmissions are lighter/smaller and the number of battery modules is half of the S platform 3 has 8 S has 16.

 

[scaesare]

If the car is only more efficient from a locomotive standpoint (lower Cd, CdA, lower rolling resistance tires, more efficient motor, etc...) then while the relative percentage of power draw from other loads (cabin heating, lights & accessories, etc...) increases, although the total draw for those loads may not.

For example: If the S draws 350Wh/mi at a given speed with the heater on, the heater accounting for 75Wh/mi of that draw and the locomotive draw 275Wh/mi, then the heater load represents 75/350= 21% of the overall power load.


Now, if the 3 draws 300Wh/mi at a given speed with the heater on, the heater accounting for the same 75Wh/mi of draw but the locomotive draw is only 225Wh/mi, then the heater load represents 75/300= 25% of the overall power load.

So relative percentages can be misleading. While the heat load as a fraction of the car's energy use appears to go up for the model 3, the overall power requirement as a whole has gone down, by 50Wh/mi, or 14%

And, the reality is that the other loads in the Model 3 may also be lesser as well: the cabin has less volume, the console screen size is smaller, accessories may be more efficient, etc...

All of this means that a smaller battery may be selected to to achieve the same range as well as provide the same auxiliary functionality (heating,etc...) when efficiencies are gained in any one area. Locomotive power is the single largest energy draw, so efficiencies gained there will allow the largest battery size reduction with no impact.

 

[SageBrush]

Numbers are somewhat contrived to show an example ...
Nice Weather
Bolt @ 70 mph
200 mile range
60 kWh useable
300 Wh per mile: 175 Aero, 125 Wh other

M3 @ 70 mph
200 mile range
50 kWh useable
250 Wh per mile: 125 Wh Aero, 125 Wh other

Now, winter driving where all resistances increase 20% and speed drops from 70 to 62 mph which result in the same Aero friction as nice weather
Bolt @ 62 mph
175 Aero, Other = 125*1.2 = 150 Wh/mile = 325 Wh/mile total
Range: 60,000 Wh / 325 Wh/mile ---> 185 miles

M3 @ 62 mph
125 Aero, 125*1.2 = 150 Wh/mile = 275 Wh/mile total
Range: 50,000 Wh/275 Wh/mile = 181 miles

----
The other way to qualitatively think about this is any additional load to the cars is a smaller Wh/mile fractional increment to the Bolt than the M3 because it starts at a higher number, and since the drop in range in proportional to the increase in Wh/mile, the Bolt will have less of a drop in range than an M3.

Prius owners with poor arithmetic skills put up quite a fuss in the day, complaining of 10 - 20% drop in fuel economy when AC cooling was used, compared to a ~ 1-2 mpg drop in their old clunkers ;-)
The somewhat unfortunate marketing reality for the M3 is that the EPA test is performed in pretty nice conditions, so a lot of the "real world" driving experience will be in harsher conditions where the proportional increase will be more apparent.