Tesla Model 3 anticipated driving range (non-upgraded, base level battery)

[ModelNforNerd]

Not true, GM has done at least three full-time EVs: EV1, S-10 Electric, and Spark EV. So you could look at the Bolt as a 3rd or 4th go-round since the EV1 and S-20 essentially shared the same drive train. (And I'm sure they gained a lot of experience with the Volt as well.)

experience, maybe....but how much data were they able to collect from the masses?

If you make one or two of something, and then you attempt to make 250,000 of them, you don't always get good data to build upon.

 

[cokata]

220-240 mile EPA range with a 50kwh pack. More efficient powertrain (motor + inverter) and bigger portion of the battery will be usable. That's my prediction.

 

[keithz]

You guys are optimistic!

Musk seems to have a way of delivering bare minimum and getting away with it.

If he can deliver 200 miles for $35k and get away with it, that's exactly what he will do. This encourages more profitable upgrades. And that's exactly what he/Tesla wants.

The only way range is higher on the base model is if they need the chasis/platform to have a higher storage at that level to facilitate the base Model Y. If he can get away with a 50 kWh battery getting 200 miles, he'd do it. The only way he'll add more, is if Tesla needs to use the 50 kWh pack as the base on the Y and need to add power to maintain range. I could even see Musk pulling another S60. Build this platform with 60kWh and 80kWh batteries. Disable 10 kWh.


I still think a rough config would be something like this


50 kWh - 200 mi (really just a gimped 60 kWh pack)
60 kWh - 240 mi
80 kWh - 320 mi

Adjust appropriately for D and P versions. This way they can launch the Y with the 60 kWh and 80 kWh packs.

 

[Model 3]

If he can deliver 200 miles for $35k and get away with it, that's exactly what he will do. This encourages more profitable upgrades. And that's exactly what he/Tesla wants.

Depends on what Elon/Tesla's goal is. If it is to make as much money on building/selling BEV's as they can, your probably right. If it is "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible" - in other words: to put as many people into an BEV that can fully replace their fossil car as they can as fast as they can, then you’re wrong.

 

[guillaumef]

But a bit of basic math:
Model S has a 70 and a 90 KWH pack currently:
Model ≡ is 20% smaller?
Model ≡ batteries are 10% taller?
Model ≡ batteries are 30%-40% more efficient?

70*.8*1.1*1.3= 80.08KWH
70*.8*1.1*1.4= 86.24KWH

90*.8*1.1*1.3= 102.96KWH
90*.8*1.1*1.4= 110.88KWH

If the model 3 is more efficient, you don't add kWh for same range, you lower it... That will drop your kWh in the same range everybody is talking about, so 45 to 65 kWh...

 

[keithz]

Depends on what Elon/Tesla's goal is. If it is to make as much money on building/selling BEV's as they can, your probably right. If it is "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible" - in other words: to put as many people into an BEV that can fully replace their fossil car as they can as fast as they can, then you’re wrong.

The only way he can "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" is by making sure Tesla survives and is profitable. This also sets an example for other automakers that EVs are a profitable sector. Making no (or very little) money on the $35k Model 3 doesn't help Tesla or its goal.

Elon's no fool. He knows that most people will skip the base model and go one up. He's just got to make sure the escalation of committment is reasonable enough that people will actually follow through. I will honestly be shocked if he does anything more than 200 miles at $35k. The selling point after all is not just the range but the whole car. The Chevy Bolt gives you 200 miles. But there`s a lot of other things it doesn`t give you, which the Model 3 will have (from aesthetics to better infotainment to optional automation). So if he can edge out the Bolt et al. without investing a lot in batteries and more range, why would he?

 

[Brad_SC]

If the model 3 is more efficient, you don't add kWh for same range, you lower it... That will drop your kWh in the same range everybody is talking about, so 45 to 65 kWh...

I'm glad that you stated the obvious, cause undoubtedly some people here do not understand that in a more efficient car, less KWH capacity is required. What you might have missed is that Tesla hasn't said, "we are going to get the same range as the Model S, and stop there."

Here's the math:
Current Model S is 70 and 90 KWH (this will appear in the formulas as "a70" or "a90")
Model ≡ is 20% smaller? (this will appear in the formulas as "b0.8")
Model ≡ batteries are 10% taller? (this will appear as "c1.1" in the formulas)
Model ≡ batteries are 30%-40% more efficient? (this will appear as "d1.3" or "d1.4")


a70*b0.8*c1.1*d1.3= 80.08KWH
a70*b0.8*c1.1*d1.4= 86.24KWH


a90*b0.8*c1.1*d1.3= 102.96KWH
a90*b0.8*c1.1*d1.4= 110.88KWH



If the Model S were to update to the new batteries, their formulas would be:
a70*c1.1*d1.3= 100.1KWH
a70*c1.1*d1.4= 107.8KWH

a90*c1.1*d1.3= 128.7KWH
a90*c1.1*d1.4= 138.6KWH

I am not indicating that the Model ≡ will have batteries this big.
I am indicating (just as in my original post) that the Model ≡ COULD HAVE REALLY BIG BATTERIES.
Yes, that would translate to a VERY long driving range; thus, Tesla certainly has options available to them here.
They could give us a 45KWH pack and we could get 200 miles, or they could double (or triple) the pack size, giving us about double (or triple) the driving range.

 

[Max*]

1. If you double or triple the battery size, you do not get double or triple the range. Look at the 70/90 comparison. 70/90 = 28.5% more batteries, while 240/286 = 19% more range.

It's no where near linear.

1. Why are the Model 3 batteries 30%-40% more efficient? EM said battery capacity will grow at 5% per year (let's assume he's right), so in 2 years, we're talking about 10.25% more battery capacity. Where did you get 30% from?

 

[Model 3]

The only way he can "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" is by making sure Tesla survives and is profitable.

Absolutely correct. And I did not suggest that they would give the cars away for free - or sell at a loss/cost price. But they will be able to sell this cars and make it profitable even if they actually deliver what they (Elon) has promised: An BEV with "200 miles real world range" and stating that this "real world" miles is shorter then the EPA numbers. He did indicate that 240 EPA miles was really what you need to get "200 miles real world range". I don't expect it to be quite so high, but in the area of 220-240 EPA miles. And definitely not 199 or 201 EPA miles.

 

[cokata]

It would be interesting if they will be able to get more regen out of the new battery (it's battery limited afterall). If they manage to keep the same 60kw obviously the car will break much harder because it will be ~30% lighter. Inverter efficiency is key to extracting more energy from regen since the you have a double conversion going on.

 

[Gerasimental]

Let's look at it this way:

Model S60 is rated at 208 miles EPA. This implies an EPA rating of 3.47miles/kWh. So, if the Model S hypothetically had an S55 variant, then the EPA range would be around 191 miles (ignoring the lower weight of a smaller pack).
Now, the S60 has a Cd of 0.24, CdA of 6.2 sq ft, and a curb weight of 4,600 lbs. So, if we assume (from the rumors floating around) that Model ☰ does have a Cd of 0.2 and CdA = 6.2*0.8 = 4.96. Let's also assume curb weight = 4600*0.8 = 3,680 lbs. Coeff of rolling resistance is assumed at 0.008, since 17" low-rolling-resistance tires average around that.

Now, plug in the numbers to calculate drag & rolling threshold forces, then use EPA combination to get the average energy consumption... blah blah blah... I just used a Matlab program that churns out the results. The effective range of a Model ☰ 55 would be around 228 miles. I've been predicting 240 miles EPA, because the result of 228 miles is based on the assumption that the battery and drivetrain technologies are the same as in current Model S. We know the Model ☰ will be getting a new generation drivetrain, and the new 26650 cells with 40% higher energy density. That alone should add a few more miles to the estimate. I was being conservative and rounded it up to 240 miles.

So, there you have it! Hope that clarifies how I ended up with the 240 mile estimate.

You weren't, really. You assumed best-case scenario for rolling resistance and Cd. When you say CdA, do you just mean frontal area? CdA is usually defined as the product of Cd, the drag coeff, and A, the frontal area. If so, an M3/MS ratio of 0.9 is more likely than 0.8 unless you expect M3 to be as long as MS.
The assumption that the mass ratio is 0.8 is also optimistic as it assumes the same materials, but we know that M3 will contain more stell and less alumnium.

The above points could be argued to roughly offset the converativism of assuming no major change in battery chemistry. - I think 230 is a good bet.

Would you mind sharing you m-script? would be fun to play around.

 

[SageBrush]

Let's look at it this way:

Model S60 is rated at 208 miles EPA. This implies an EPA rating of 3.47miles/kWh. So, if the Model S hypothetically had an S55 variant, then the EPA range would be around 191 miles (ignoring the lower weight of a smaller pack).
Now, the S60 has a Cd of 0.24, CdA of 6.2 sq ft, and a curb weight of 4,600 lbs. So, if we assume (from the rumors floating around) that Model ☰ does have a Cd of 0.2 and CdA = 6.2*0.8 = 4.96. Let's also assume curb weight = 4600*0.8 = 3,680 lbs. Coeff of rolling resistance is assumed at 0.008, since 17" low-rolling-resistance tires average around that.

Now, plug in the numbers to calculate drag & rolling threshold forces, then use EPA combination to get the average energy consumption... blah blah blah... I just used a Matlab program that churns out the results. The effective range of a Model ☰ 55 would be around 228 miles. I've been predicting 240 miles EPA, because the result of 228 miles is based on the assumption that the battery and drivetrain technologies are the same as in current Model S. We know the Model ☰ will be getting a new generation drivetrain, and the new 26650 cells with 40% higher energy density. That alone should add a few more miles to the estimate. I was being conservative and rounded it up to 240 miles.

So, there you have it! Hope that clarifies how I ended up with the 240 mile estimate.

Thanks, well described.
I'm skeptical of a 0.2 Cd in a not 'weird-looking' car but I'm always happy to be surprised. Actually, 0.24 would be quite an achievement. On the highway that would bring you back to the 200 neighborhood.

 

[Az_Rael]

Well, I am happy to be wrong on this one!! 215 EPA rated miles in the base model!