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

[stopcrazypp]

The base Model 3 could even be a 50kW battery and possibly meet Elon's announced range of 215 (though he did say he hoped the base range would be higher).

If so, the larger capacity battery option could be 70kW and the range could be around 275.

I think 50kWh is cutting it very close. By the same math that leaves 47.65kWh usable and 205 miles of range at 4.3kWh/mi. I don't think the Model 3 will be significantly more efficient than the i3 (esp. in combined efficiency, even though it might beat it in highway efficiency).

 

[geoffreak]

~*sigh*~

The 2014 Toyota RAV4 EV had a 50 kWh battery pack with 41.8 kWh available for use. It achieved a 103 mile EPA rated range. This car used a Tesla Motors drivetrain and battery pack, though the motor was rated at only 154 HP. It weighed roughly 400 lbs less than the Model S 60.

Something here does not compute.

Are you sure that's the correct number? I see a 41kWh battery. 50kWh was for early prototypes with even higher range. If you improve capacity by 30% to a 55kWh battery and you greatly improve the aerodynamics and slightly improve weight, 215 miles is pretty easy.

 

[Lunarx]

Side point: it is very bad form to copy and paste the entire article into a post. A snip of the most important part is sufficient.

I like that FlatSix911 posted the entire article.
It was good reading.
Also he has a cool car.

 

[Red Sage]

Are you sure that's the correct number? I see a 41kWh battery. 50kWh was for early prototypes with even higher range. If you improve capacity by 30% to a 55kWh battery and you greatly improve the aerodynamics and weight, 215 miles is pretty easy.

Either way, it achieved an EPA rated range 36 miles shorter than the Tesla Model S 40. I sincerely doubt a 55 kWh or smaller battery will be sufficient to both meet the performance targets, while also achieving the needed range. Awesome if it turns out I'm wrong as a result of improved chemistry, better power electronics, smaller aerodynamic profile, lower mass, etc. But I honestly believe that 60 kWh should be the bare minimum and that 70 kWh would be best as the base capacity for Model ☰.

 

[geoffreak]

Either way, it achieved an EPA rated range 36 miles shorter than the Tesla Model S 40. I sincerely doubt a 55 kWh or smaller battery will be sufficient to both meet the performance targets, while also achieving the needed range. Awesome if it turns out I'm wrong as a result of improved chemistry, better power electronics, smaller aerodynamic profile, lower mass, etc. But I honestly believe that 60 kWh should be the bare minimum and that 70 kWh would be best as the base capacity for Model ☰.

Another thing that is greatly improved is efficiency of components. The RAV4 EV is built off of original Roadster components. Tesla has learned a lot since then and the Model S/X/3 aren't converted ICEs like the RAV4.

As Xaff mentioned on the previous page, even the original roadster did 240 miles on 56 kWh. I think it's rather silly that you're doubting that 8 years of development can't make a vehicle the next size up have at least the same efficiency as a first generation vehicle.

 

[MiamiNole]

I admit I'm somewhat uninformed on the topic of battery costs, but if what the Tesla VP of Investor Relations said is true and battery costs is already below $190/kWh, then doesn't that mean that Tesla is currently making an absolute killing on current Model S and X battery upgrades and/or pricing in general? At some point should the price for the bigger battery option come down for those cars? Or will they continue to just offer bigger battery sizes for the same price? Not sure how the profit margin for the battery upgrades have changed over the years for the Model S. I would love to know though if someone more informed than me had that kind of data handy...

At any rate, I'm excited about what this could possibly mean for the price of the bigger battery option for the Model 3. At first, I was thinking it was an unneeded luxury expense for me since I didn't really care about max range, especially given the $10K+ price of the option on the S. But since learning about the added performance benefits and more efficient charging that a bigger battery offers, I've definitely been intrigued. If the price of the option does end up dropping below $7500, then there are going to be a LOT of boxes checked for that option...

 

[Electroman]

Where is the need for any senior executive from Tesla to come and say anything at all at this juncture.?. let the so called wise heads in the industry keep speculating. As long as Tesla hit their targets, there is no need to blurt out anything at all..

 

[Steepler2k]

I admit I'm somewhat uninformed on the topic of battery costs, but if what the Tesla VP of Investor Relations said is true and battery costs is already below $190/kWh, then doesn't that mean that Tesla is currently making an absolute killing on current Model S and X battery upgrades and/or pricing in general? At some point should the price for the bigger battery option come down for those cars? Or will they continue to just offer bigger battery sizes for the same price? Not sure how the profit margin for the battery upgrades have changed over the years for the Model S. I would love to know though if someone more informed than me had that kind of data handy...

At any rate, I'm excited about what this could possibly mean for the price of the bigger battery option for the Model 3. At first, I was thinking it was an unneeded luxury expense for me since I didn't really care about max range, especially given the $10K+ price of the option on the S. But since learning about the added performance benefits and more efficient charging that a bigger battery offers, I've definitely been intrigued. If the price of the option does end up dropping below $7500, then there are going to be a LOT of boxes checked for that option...

Model S/X prices are unlikely to change until they have electric competition that forces them to adjust.

 

[zdre]

My guess is that it will be just under 60kWh. It will have more reserves at both ends as general public will be less tolerant of degradation and running out of juice at 0mi. 215mi * 250Wh/mi / 90% usable = 59.7 kWh

 

[techmaven]

I played around with Aerodynamic & rolling resistance, power & MPG calculator - EcoModder.com

Assuming the Model 3 is slightly heavier than the Bolt at 3,800 lbs, I get:

The Bolt would need 14.7kW @ 65 mph, and 21.2 kW @ 75 mph.
The Model 3 would need 10.8kW @ 65 mph, and 15.1 kW @ 75 mph.

Of course, this doesn't include the actual power consumption of the climate controls, the onboard computers, etc.

@ 65mph, the Model 3 needs 74% the power, and @ 75 mph, the Model 3 needs 71% the power.

I suspect the Model 3 base model is right around 52 kWh, with 48 kWh usable. That's 223 watt/mile assuming 215 miles of range @ steady 65mph. That's 166 watts/mile of movement energy, the rest are computers, BMS, HVAC, and motor/inverter loss.

To calibrate against the Model S, @ 65mph, the 90D needs 13.5 kW. That's 207 Wh/mile. Rated range is 303 miles, assume 85 kWh available? That's 280 Wh/mile. Back out the inverter loss and motor loss, that's about 245 Wh/mile. So everything else is 35 watts. Assuming slight gain in efficiency of the computers and smaller BMS drain, we're talking 30 watts? 30 + 166*1.08*1.05 = 218 watts/mile.

Edit: calibrated against the S, added inverter and motor losses

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I admit I'm somewhat uninformed on the topic of battery costs, but if what the Tesla VP of Investor Relations said is true and battery costs is already below $190/kWh, then doesn't that mean that Tesla is currently making an absolute killing on current Model S and X battery upgrades and/or pricing in general? At some point should the price for the bigger battery option come down for those cars? Or will they continue to just offer bigger battery sizes for the same price? Not sure how the profit margin for the battery upgrades have changed over the years for the Model S. I would love to know though if someone more informed than me had that kind of data handy...

At any rate, I'm excited about what this could possibly mean for the price of the bigger battery option for the Model 3. At first, I was thinking it was an unneeded luxury expense for me since I didn't really care about max range, especially given the $10K+ price of the option on the S. But since learning about the added performance benefits and more efficient charging that a bigger battery offers, I've definitely been intrigued. If the price of the option does end up dropping below $7500, then there are going to be a LOT of boxes checked for that option...

But that's assuming that the S and X are using the newer battery chemistry rumored to be headed to the 3. I haven't heard that they are.

Of course, the P100D pack might.....stay tuned.

 

[pmadflyer]

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.

 

[brianman]

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.

I think you're reading too much into Elon's phrasing.

More recently, he's essentially equated "real world miles" with "EPA rating".

 

[Zoomit]

That's 223 watt/mile assuming 215 miles of range @ steady 65mph.

Don't you think the 215mi would be an EPA Combined range estimate, not an estimate at 65mph?

 

[TEG]

Tesla having perhaps the best CD (coefficient of drag) in the business will sure help their efficiency and range, but I wonder how they will be able to be so efficient if they use such big tires...(?)
I think more narrow tires tend to offer lower rolling resistance, but Tesla seems determined to have "beefy rubber" on their cars for handling and appearance reasons I assume.

 

[brianman]

I think more narrow tires tend to offer lower rolling resistance, but Tesla seems determined to have "beefy rubber" on their cars for handling and appearance reasons I assume.

I think they put handling under the safety banner when they prioritize non-narrow tires.

 

[TEG]

I think they put handling under the safety banner when they prioritize non-narrow tires.

Take that BMW i3 !!!
Tire Tech: How does the BMW i3 handle so well on such narrow tires? - Roadshow

 

[roblab]

Another thing that is greatly improved is efficiency of components. The RAV4 EV is built off of original Roadster components. Tesla has learned a lot since then and the Model S/X/3 aren't converted ICEs like the RAV4.

As Xaff mentioned on the previous page, even the original roadster did 240 miles on 56 kWh. I think it's rather silly that you're doubting that 8 years of development can't make a vehicle the next size up have at least the same efficiency as a first generation vehicle.

I owned a 2002 RAV4EV, and there are many still on the road. I got 100 miles per charge, but I was always afraid I wouldn't make it, and it was often a close call.

It was a barn door. Slower speed (like 35 mph) was what did it. I don't think weight factored in.

 

[TEG]

Another thing that is greatly improved is efficiency of components. The RAV4 EV is built off of original Roadster components. Tesla has learned a lot since then and the Model S/X/3 aren't converted ICEs like the RAV4.

No... There was a prototype Rav4EV conversion done by Tesla with Roadster like bits, but that was just a proof of concept.
The ones that Toyota built had a Model S style motor, and battery pack using Model S like tech.

( In Roblab's post above he refers to the original (pre Tesla) RAV4EV that used entirely different tech.)

The range on the newer 2nd gen Rav4EV is well under 200 because:
#1: The pack is a lot less than 60kWh (closer to 40kWh)
#2: It isn't as aerodynamic as Tesla vehicles (as already mentioned.)
(and other stuff like the fact that it started as an ICE chassis like you mentioned.)

 

[igotzzoom]

At lower speeds, weight is the bigger factor in energy consumption (whether hydrocarbons or electrons), at higher speeds, it's usually more an issue of aerodynamic drag.