Tesla cuts 60kWh Model S, entry-level Model S is now 70D.

[vgrinshpun]

But the problem with your numbers are all based on the assumption that the "reserved" pack amount is always .95% of the battery. First, why would it be a percentage in reserve? The car systems, electronics, and battery management would all draw the same amount of power as a vampire drain over time regardless of how big the battery is (within reason). No one has definitively answered that question. If anything, the closest thing to deriving that number points toward 300wh/mi being the EPA rating on the 85 (I can't speak for the others as I don't drive the others). When you look in the car on the energy gauge as soon as you go to 302/303 the dotted line appears slightly above the rated line and as soon as you go 298/297 it appears slightly below. Since you can't zoom in to be more granular on the car's energy gauge, the best I can do is take the middle number which is 300. But it certainly shows a dotted line *above* the rated line when you average 305 or more on your gauge.

This points toward 79.5kWh as usable. Or rather, 79.5kWh when the gauge will read 0 miles remaining (there is a slight buffer there, but again, noone has really gotten a definitive answer to how much range you have before the car shuts down and you have to be towed.

The real question is, did they choose to *always* keep 5.5kWh in "reserve", or even using your 4.25kWh in "reserve" or is it a percentage as you imply? Changing to a fixed number like that would certainly throw off all your calculations. I haven't done the math to see by how much, but I think it would be worth validating based on the car's output what it is saying the rated usage should be. This was why I took from the EPA's website since that at least was some kind of definitive source.

It may not seem like much, but 300 vs 305 is a little more than 1 kWh difference in the whole pack, which is more than enough to throw off all the numbers in your calculation. Your thought process is sound, but I think your assumptions are skewing the results.

C'mon, Chickensevil, I thought you are familiar with my posting enough to know that if 5% would be my assumption, I would be sure to state it.

There is no problem with 95%, as it is not an assumption. It comes right out of the Model S Manual, on page 113 it states the following:

Discharging the Battery to 0% may permanently damage the Battery. To protect against a complete discharge, Model S enters a low-power consumption mode when the charge level drops to 5%. In this mode, the Battery stops supporting the on board electronics to slow the discharge rate to approximately 4% per month. Once this low power consumption mode is active, it is important to plug in Model S within two months to avoid Battery damage.

Regarding the energy consumption from the EPA page, as I mentioned before, it is derived from the test data using arbitrary fudge coefficients. The range shown by EPA, however is directly based on test data. So my calculation is based on official Tesla data for the "bricking" reserve and official EPA range that is based on actual measurements.

 

[vgrinshpun]

There were several members that commented that my chart is not quite right as it should show effect of the increased weight of the battery pack separately from the efect of dual motors (Thank you @brucet999, @schonelucht and @gtoffo - my apologies if I missed others). After giving it some though I agree and the revised chart is included below.

In order to update the chart I needed data point (energy consumption) for hypothetical 60D. Since this data does not exist, I used range data for 85D and 85 to obtain range for hypothetical 60D as follows: (270*208/265=212).

I also updated range for 70D from 240 to 245 miles. This is truly amazing piece of information: apparently EPA tested 70D range to be 245 miles, but TM "voluntarily" lowered it to 240 miles! This information comes from the Inside EVs article that has embedded official EPA Range Data.

As seen from the chart, the blue line represent increase of the energy consumption for RWD variants with addition of cells to 60kWh battery pack up to the 85kWh pack. The orange line represent the same effect but for dual motor variants.

The chart shows that energy consumption point for 70D is not only well below orange line, but in fact is lower than energy consumption of the MS with 60kWh pack. As I explained in my previous posts, this is not possible if the weight of the packs in 60 and 70D is not approximately equal. This, in turn, indicates that cell used in 70D are likely to have higher energy density, by up to 16.7%.

If this theory indeed is accurate, the implications are far reaching:

• We can expect 100kWh packs available in MX and in MS, perhaps as early as by the end of this year
• Release of the battery packs with new cells will lower risk associated with launch of Model X, as another new feature (after the dual motor drive) will be launched and real life tested before the launch of MX
• This also will allow real life testing and minor necessary adjustments of the new generation cells prior to launching this technology into mass production at the GF (although likely with a different form factor)
• And last, and probably most exciting implication is that reduction of cost due to new generation of cell will likely be more than 10%, and potentially up to full 16.7%. This means that combined with the more than 30% savings due to manufacturing and scale efficiencies, the new battery packs for Model 3 will be more than 40% less expensive than the current battery packs.

 

[GregTexas]

I also updated range for 70D from 240 to 245 miles. This is truly amazing piece of information: apparently EPA tested 70D range to be 245 miles, but TM "voluntarily" lowered it to 240 miles!

Good news for 70D buyers. Sounds like Tesla wants to artificially create a greater range gap between the models.

 

[pGo]

Not sure if it helps here, but when 60D was announced for a few days, Tesla claimed its range as 225 miles @65mph.

 

[chickensevil]

C'mon, Chickensevil, I thought you are familiar with my posting enough to know that if 5% would be my assumption, I would be sure to state it.

There is no problem with 95%, as it is not an assumption. It comes right out of the Model S Manual, on page 113 it states the following:

I have tons of respect for your comments and knowledge on things so know that I am not trying to continue to contest this out of spite or anything, but I don't think that means what you think it means in the manual. I think there must be a difference between their statement of 5% here and whatever they keep back in reserve. The reason I say that is because owners who have actually drained their pack fully it has two critical modes. The low battery warning and shut down, and the total disconnect critical state. This total disconnect state when it happened to an owner they actually had to take the car in to a service center to reconnect the battery because you couldn't just plug it back in.

The statement you pulled in and of itself conflicts. "low-power consumption mode when the charge level drops to 5%" "discharge rate to approximately 4% per month" "plug in Model S within two months to avoid Battery damage" last I checked 4%*2 > 5%... so maybe perhaps the real reserve is actually 4%? I am willing to bet the 5% value stated here is when you see 5% remaining on the dash. So you leave the car in storage for say 5 months, it drops to 5% on month 3, and the last 2 months it then goes from 5% to -4%?

There is an extra caution off to the side that supports that 5% listed coincides with 5% as you see it on the dash because:

If the Battery’s charge level fallsto 0%, you must plug it in. If you leave itunplugged for an extended period, it maynot be possible to charge Model S or usethe vehicle without jump starting orreplacing the 12V battery. LeavingModel S unplugged for an extendedperiod can also result in permanentBattery damage. If you are unable tocharge Model S, contact Teslaimmediately.

This goes back to what I was saying about someone who actually experienced this, had to bring the whole car in to Tesla to fix it because it cut the battery off from everything to protect itself (and the on-board chargers require some amount of power to regulate the power flow, most likely). So assuming I am a dumb owner that knew nothing about some kind of "reserve anti-bricking" stuff, I would read that and see 100% on a full charge and know that running to 0% is a bad idea, but if it goes to 5% (as I see on the dash) I know the car will go into a power saving mode.

So again, I don't know that you have a real answer here on what the reserve is, because everywhere they mention a percentage it is always in reference to what you, the owner, would be able to see on the car.

I think the real reserve amount will forever be a mystery until Tesla gives us a real answer. And @warpedone, Until you hit full discharge, my understanding of the voltages is that there is an operating range there, You already experience the voltage drop in that the car is slower 0-60 when you are under 50% as opposed to being above 90% (and no I am not referring to getting the yellow lines) So I don't think the voltage dropping too low would be an issue unless you go full on discharge which you lose all power and it kills the pack. Unless I am missing something?

 

[Gtoffo]

I have tons of respect for your comments and knowledge on things so know that I am not trying to continue to contest this out of spite or anything, but I don't think that means what you think it means in the manual. I think there must be a difference between their statement of 5% here and whatever they keep back in reserve. The reason I say that is because owners who have actually drained their pack fully it has two critical modes. The low battery warning and shut down, and the total disconnect critical state. This total disconnect state when it happened to an owner they actually had to take the car in to a service center to reconnect the battery because you couldn't just plug it back in.

The statement you pulled in and of itself conflicts. "low-power consumption mode when the charge level drops to 5%" "discharge rate to approximately 4% per month" "plug in Model S within two months to avoid Battery damage" last I checked 4%*2 > 5%... so maybe perhaps the real reserve is actually 4%? I am willing to bet the 5% value stated here is when you see 5% remaining on the dash. So you leave the car in storage for say 5 months, it drops to 5% on month 3, and the last 2 months it then goes from 5% to -4%?

There is an extra caution off to the side that supports that 5% listed coincides with 5% as you see it on the dash because:

This goes back to what I was saying about someone who actually experienced this, had to bring the whole car in to Tesla to fix it because it cut the battery off from everything to protect itself (and the on-board chargers require some amount of power to regulate the power flow, most likely). So assuming I am a dumb owner that knew nothing about some kind of "reserve anti-bricking" stuff, I would read that and see 100% on a full charge and know that running to 0% is a bad idea, but if it goes to 5% (as I see on the dash) I know the car will go into a power saving mode.

So again, I don't know that you have a real answer here on what the reserve is, because everywhere they mention a percentage it is always in reference to what you, the owner, would be able to see on the car.

I think the real reserve amount will forever be a mystery until Tesla gives us a real answer. And @warpedone, Until you hit full discharge, my understanding of the voltages is that there is an operating range there, You already experience the voltage drop in that the car is slower 0-60 when you are under 50% as opposed to being above 90% (and no I am not referring to getting the yellow lines) So I don't think the voltage dropping too low would be an issue unless you go full on discharge which you lose all power and it kills the pack. Unless I am missing something?

Well this should be irrelevant in any case. Assuming that all the data points we have correspond to batteries with the same % of reserve, then our result will still stand.

 

[chickensevil]

Not sure if it helps here, but when 60D was announced for a few days, Tesla claimed its range as 225 miles @65mph.

Just for kicks:
85D: 295
85: 285
60: 215

So 60 -> 60D efficiency gain is 4.4% and 85 -> 85D efficiency gain is 3.4% So the weight difference in this case only limited the efficiency by 1%. This is important because it speaks volumes to the dual motors being a pretty large contributor to the efficiency. If we assuming a linear efficiency drop as weight increases then the hypothetical 70 would be 3.9% less efficient. So ~9 miles drop and would come in at 231 instead of 240 (sticking with the advertised 65MPH being 240 miles of range as posted on their blog). If anyone cares to try to guess on something with that data feel free.

 

[falconeer]

Maybe this was mentioned before, but, it seems that out of the original line-up only the S85 survives:

S40 (DOA)
S60 (RIP April 15')
P85 & P85+ (RIP Dec 14'?)
S85 -> Soon...

In a few months the S85 will probably be gone too. That means we will have a completely new lineup in about 3 years from first sale!

I wonder what the next 3 years will bring...

 

[Robert.Boston]

Another Design Studio change—per Elon's tweet, the range of colors has been shaken up. The only survivors from the original 2012 color palette are black and pearl white, and the red multi-coat remains. Everything else is changed (relative to April 1):

Titanium metallic (initially "warm silver")
Midnight silver metallic (the new gray)
Obsidian black metallic
Deep metallic blue (initially "ocean blue")

plus black, pearl white, and red multi-coat.

 

[smac]

Maybe this was mentioned before, but, it seems that out of the original line-up only the S85 survives:

S40 (DOA)
S60 (RIP April 15')
P85 & P85+ (RIP Dec 14'?)
S85 -> Soon...

In a few months the S85 will probably be gone too. That means we will have a completely new lineup in about 3 years from first sale!

I wonder what the next 3 years will bring...

Turmoil in the used and pre-order market ?

Completely agree the S85 will die, so AWD only (and it makes sense from a production and logistics POV). Personally I feel it complements the character of the cars handling anyway.

The only real benefit I can see from the S85 is you have a more usable frunk when the rear seats are fitted. Seems a bit of an outlier to justify making two different chassis versions in the factory. With the X due soon if you want 7 seats buy that.

Here in the UK the S60 and P85 had less than 9 and 6 months "air time", and P85 used prices are now collapsing (30-35% depreciation already on an 8 month old loaded one with < 12k miles). We desperately need some stability. Tesla would have been better delaying the AWD cars into the UK/RHD market given how close to the UK/RHD launch this has happened. It would have given a buffer to the used market. Now the original launch cars are going to be hard to shift

 

[vgrinshpun]

I have tons of respect for your comments and knowledge on things so know that I am not trying to continue to contest this out of spite or anything, but I don't think that means what you think it means in the manual. I think there must be a difference between their statement of 5% here and whatever they keep back in reserve. The reason I say that is because owners who have actually drained their pack fully it has two critical modes. The low battery warning and shut down, and the total disconnect critical state. This total disconnect state when it happened to an owner they actually had to take the car in to a service center to reconnect the battery because you couldn't just plug it back in.

The statement you pulled in and of itself conflicts. "low-power consumption mode when the charge level drops to 5%" "discharge rate to approximately 4% per month" "plug in Model S within two months to avoid Battery damage" last I checked 4%*2 > 5%... so maybe perhaps the real reserve is actually 4%? I am willing to bet the 5% value stated here is when you see 5% remaining on the dash. So you leave the car in storage for say 5 months, it drops to 5% on month 3, and the last 2 months it then goes from 5% to -4%?

There is an extra caution off to the side that supports that 5% listed coincides with 5% as you see it on the dash because:

This goes back to what I was saying about someone who actually experienced this, had to bring the whole car in to Tesla to fix it because it cut the battery off from everything to protect itself (and the on-board chargers require some amount of power to regulate the power flow, most likely). So assuming I am a dumb owner that knew nothing about some kind of "reserve anti-bricking" stuff, I would read that and see 100% on a full charge and know that running to 0% is a bad idea, but if it goes to 5% (as I see on the dash) I know the car will go into a power saving mode.

So again, I don't know that you have a real answer here on what the reserve is, because everywhere they mention a percentage it is always in reference to what you, the owner, would be able to see on the car.

I think the real reserve amount will forever be a mystery until Tesla gives us a real answer. And @warpedone, Until you hit full discharge, my understanding of the voltages is that there is an operating range there, You already experience the voltage drop in that the car is slower 0-60 when you are under 50% as opposed to being above 90% (and no I am not referring to getting the yellow lines) So I don't think the voltage dropping too low would be an issue unless you go full on discharge which you lose all power and it kills the pack. Unless I am missing something?

I do not see the statement from the manual as having contradiction. What it simply says that once the battery discharged to 5%, the car disconnects on-board electronics to slow battery discharge to 4% per month. After approximately 1 month and 1 week, the battery state of charge drops to 0% (as defined by TM and Panasonic). If the owner fails to plug the car in another approximately 3 weeks, the battery is permanently damaged and the warranty is void. The statement from the manual sounds very logical to me.

Regarding the two critical modes you mentioned, the first - battery warning and shutdown - is activated as battery reaches said 5% of charge. The shutdown that you mentioned is the car disconnecting the on-board electronics, as indicated in the manual. The car can not be driven at this point. The second critical mode I think is is when state of charge reaches 0% after approximately 5 weeks not being plugged in. At this point, in order to charge the car, there might be a need to get help from the Service Center. If the owner continues to neglect the rules for three more weeks and does not plug the car in, the battery damage is irreversible, and the warranty is void.

Finally, I do not think that this 5% "anti-bricking" reserve threshold corresponds to the 5% state of charge battery as it displayed on the dash, because at this point the car can't be driven as on-board electronics are disconnected. The dash shows 0% state of charge at this point. The 0% on the dash, in another words, does not correspond to the true 0% SoC of the battery, it just indicates that the car can't be driven any further.

In summary, I do not see any contradictions in the statement from the Manual, it is clearly indicates that anti-bricking reserve is 5% of the nominal battery capacity, and implies that once this level is reached the dash shows 0% of SoC.

 

[GregTexas]

Do any of the members that have done all these battery calculations think Tesla will be improving the algorithm controlling dual motors causing the range to increase?

 

[vgrinshpun]

Do any of the members that have done all these battery calculations think Tesla will be improving the algorithm controlling dual motors causing the range to increase?

During the "D" event Elon said that there will be minor tweaks made to further optimize the dual motor control, but my understanding is that further potential gains will be very limited.

 

[chickensevil]

Turmoil in the used and pre-order market ?
Here in the UK the S60 and P85 had less than 9 and 6 months "air time", and P85 used prices are now collapsing (30-35% depreciation already on an 8 month old loaded one with < 12k miles). We desperately need some stability.

This is interesting because I haven't noticed major issues with resale values here in the US on these. The prices have held decently stable through everything that has transpired. Maybe that is just a sign of stronger demand all around in the US where people who are not able to buy a new Tesla but *really* want one are getting used ones as they hit the market so they don't last long enough to keep a heavy supply and further drop prices. Although I don't live in CA so that might be a bit different over there where they have serious saturation happening.

 

[tdelta1000]

I think that TM has something in the works by getting rid of the "S" 60. The range may be to close to what the up coming Model 3 may have on the top end. Think about it... the 60 was TM's gateway product into the S line.

 

[Kevin Harney]

I think that TM has something in the works by getting rid of the "S" 60. The range may be to close to what the up coming Model 3 may have on the top end. Think about it... the 60 was TM's gateway product into the S line.

I don't think so. I think it has more to do with the Model X than the Model 3. For the base Model X to get the stated minimum by Elon of 220-240 miles EPA and 200 Real World I think it needs a bigger battery than a 60kWh. Thus the 70kWh battery and it will be used in the Base Model X. TM saves tons of money and resources by using the same components in the S and the X as much as possible.

Besides that most car manufacturers overlap their models in price and features like the BMW M3 and the 5 series. This enables those wanting more features to get the lower model and those wanting bare bones to move up to the next model. IMHO overlap is actually a key thing to have.

 

[dirkhh]

I think that TM has something in the works by getting rid of the "S" 60. The range may be to close to what the up coming Model 3 may have on the top end. Think about it... the 60 was TM's gateway product into the S line.

I don't think so. I think it has more to do with the Model X than the Model 3. For the base Model X to get the stated minimum by Elon of 220-240 miles EPA and 200 Real World I think it needs a bigger battery than a 60kWh. Thus the 70kWh battery and it will be used in the Base Model X. TM saves tons of money and resources by using the same components in the S and the X as much as possible.

Yes, I think that's the consensus. Doing something to the Model S lineup right now in preparation of the Model X launch makes sense. Doing something right now for the 2019/20 launch of the Model 3? Not so much.

 

[brianman]

Another Design Studio change—per Elon's tweet, the range of colors has been shaken up. The only survivors from the original 2012 color palette are black and pearl white, and the red multi-coat remains. Everything else is changed (relative to April 1):

Titanium metallic (initially "warm silver")
Midnight silver metallic (the new gray)
Obsidian black metallic
Deep metallic blue (initially "ocean blue")

plus black, pearl white, and red multi-coat.

Red Multi-Coat wasn't part of the "original 2012 palette". Technically only 4 colors were part of the "original" palette (Founders/Signature) but I suspect you mean the original post-Signature palette -- which did not include the Red Multi-Coat. In fact, you might recall there was much discussion about the impact/angst/whatever of introducing Red Multi-coat so "quickly" after Sig Red Multi-coat.

Edit: I think I misread read your grammatical intent with your "original 2012 color palette" sentence. Apologies. I left my reply above in-tact regardless for completeness anyway.

 

[jhm]

So I don't know where you get the EPA number of 305 from

From the EPA website:
Compare Side-by-Side
View attachment 77475View attachment 77476

So you can see that according to the EPA it is:
70D: 330wh/mi
85D: 340wh/mi
60: 350wh/mi
P85D: 360wh/mi
85: 380wh/mi

What doesn't make sense to me is how the P85D is somehow *more* efficient than the 85, yet it gets lower mileage???

Clearly their numbers are either A: accounting for some kind of loss in charging. B: totally made up??? C: Someone made a typo on the P85D (seriously it is the only one that doesn't make any lick of sense)

Anyway, throwing out the P85D because something just isn't adding up there, you can see that the efficiency difference based on EPA numbers is 8% for the 85->60 (380 -> 350) (obviously weight savings gives you the 8%) and from the 85D -> 70D (340 -> 330) is 3% efficiency gain. So based just on the numbers posted by the EPA, and assuming that whatever charging inefficiency they are hitting you on here is equal across all cars (which might not actually be the case I admit that) I am actually on the side that says it isn't being contributed to some kind of weight savings.

That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't better cells. For all we know, they have either A: Been using better cells for a while now across all cars, or B: the better cells didn't improve the weight and in fact made the cells heavier, they just fit more power in a smaller package (which is somewhat important all by itself, more power but increased weight, same volume, and if they are *cheaper*??? why wouldn't you use them?). In any case 3% for a 10kWh drop vs 8% for a 25kWh drop any minor non-matchup here is likely attributed to the more efficient motors than anything.

- - - Updated - - -

If 8% is equally dropping per pound then going from 60 to 85 cost them 1% per 3.125kWh. Similarly in going from the 70D to 85D it cost them 1% per 5kWh.

Is the Dual Motors really that much more efficient that the added weight doesn't make as large of an impact to efficiency?

Let's look at a different comparison to find out. 85 vs 85D. This is 380 -> 340 which is an efficiency gain of 11%!!! With a smaller motor in the back to make up for a small motor in front, I would bet that there isn't too much weight difference between the two. Even if there was, that is still 11% being gained *straight* from adding the dual motor. I am willing to believe that 1% efficiency loss per 5kWh number up above as the motors are making the car more efficient in a big way, in-spite of the weight difference.

The EPA efficiency numbers do not square with the ranges and battery capacity. For the 70D, 70kWh / 240 mile = 292 Wh/mile, not 330 as the EPA estimates. For the 85D, 85kWh / 270 mile = 315 Wh/mile, not 340 per EPA. So EPA must be accounting for energy input, not energy stored. The differences may be due to other hardware than the just the cells. Note for the 85, 85 kWh / 265 mile = 320, but 380 per EPA. This suggests to me that the 85D may have a better inverter or something that makes charging substantially more efficient. A better inverter might also explain why the new 85D accelerates so much better.

So from storage to range, the 70D gets more range per kWh than the 85D. Perhaps the weight difference assuming identical cell is sufficient to explain this, but we also cannot be sure that these cells are identical. The 60 got 288 Wh/mile which is almost the same as the 70D, but this comparison does not allow for efficiency gains through the D. This is close enough that I cannot rule out the possibility that the 60 pack and 70 pack are the same mass. Perhaps someone has some info on the weight of these cars that may shed some light. For the time being, I remain optimistic that Tesla does have a slightly higher density cell. They are due for this and would really want to try this out before putting it in the Model X.

 

[jhm]

There were several members that commented that my chart is not quite right as it should show effect of the increased weight of the battery pack separately from the efect of dual motors (Thank you @brucet999, @schonelucht and @gtoffo - my apologies if I missed others). After giving it some though I agree and the revised chart is included below.

In order to update the chart I needed data point (energy consumption) for hypothetical 60D. Since this data does not exist, I used range data for 85D and 85 to obtain range for hypothetical 60D as follows: (270*208/265=212).

I also updated range for 70D from 240 to 245 miles. This is truly amazing piece of information: apparently EPA tested 70D range to be 245 miles, but TM "voluntarily" lowered it to 240 miles! This information comes from the Inside EVs article that has embedded official EPA Range Data.

As seen from the chart, the blue line represent increase of the energy consumption for RWD variants with addition of cells to 60kWh battery pack up to the 85kWh pack. The orange line represent the same effect but for dual motor variants.

The chart shows that energy consumption point for 70D is not only well below orange line, but in fact is lower than energy consumption of the MS with 60kWh pack. As I explained in my previous posts, this is not possible if the weight of the packs in 60 and 70D is not approximately equal. This, in turn, indicates that cell used in 70D are likely to have higher energy density, by up to 16.7%.

View attachment 77612

If this theory indeed is accurate, the implications are far reaching:

• We can expect 100kWh packs available in MX and in MS, perhaps as early as by the end of this year
• Release of the battery packs with new cells will lower risk associated with launch of Model X, as another new feature (after the dual motor drive) will be launched and real life tested before the launch of MX
• This also will allow real life testing and minor necessary adjustments of the new generation cells prior to launching this technology into mass production at the GF (although likely with a different form factor)
• And last, and probably most exciting implication is that reduction of cost due to new generation of cell will likely be more than 10%, and potentially up to full 16.7%. This means that combined with the more than 30% savings due to manufacturing and scale efficiencies, the new battery packs for Model 3 will be more than 40% less expensive than the current battery packs.

This is a very good presentation. I like the chart. I'm not sure where you are getting the Wh/mile figures. I'm sure you addressed that in earlier posts, and they seem to scale with simple ratios of kWh battery to miles range.

There is still enough ambiguity here that critics can dispute it all they want. But Tesla has a long history of dropping clues here and there that some are able to piece together and see where the company is headed while others just want to dismiss. In time, these things will become clear. I suspect that Tesla will launch the Model X with 70 and 100 packs, and it will be clearer that we are dealing with higher density cell, unless the 100 pack are bulkier and heavier.

So let's just weight and see. I know all I need to know to hold my shares. The risk here is to shorts if they assume that Tesla has not developed higher density batteries.