-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Well, my speculation is based simply on the differential between Standard and Range versions. About 275Wh/mile would imply about 25kWh for an extra 90 miles of range.
Perhaps Range has 6 modules at about 12kWh each. With room for up to 8 modules, perhaps a 400 mile range is in the cards. Now that's a wild speculation!
Perhaps Range has 6 modules at about 12kWh each. With room for up to 8 modules, perhaps a 400 mile range is in the cards. Now that's a wild speculation!
LargeHamCollider
Battery cells != scalable
Many things have changed since the 2016 unveil, I'm well aware of the 8 modules shown in the animation at the unveiling and for this reason I assumed that the small battery car would be 6 modules and the large battery car 8 modules. But the ratio of ranges is not close to 4/3.
I was a bit confused by this at first too, but the range ratio is very close to 3/2 when taking into account the added efficiency of the lighter car and the possible lite sandbagging of the range of the long range car. I came to the conclusion of battery capacity ratios being 3/2 prior to seeing the Car and Driver article, which was a nice confirmation.
Here is the source: Stand and Deliver: Elon Musk Hands Off First Tesla Model 3 Production Cars
@LHC
I've already started to object but than redone the known numbers and I have to agree, they do not fit 8 module configuration at all. Elon said 310 for LR, but there are pics of cars reporting 315.
315/220 = 1.43, 310/220 = 1.41
Indeed something I would expect from 3:2 config.
What about voltages though?
I don't see those three modules running in series though, 220 would end up being 260V max, kinda low. But on the other hand I also don't see them being in parallel at 400V each. To many HV pieces.
I'd guess, they have reduced those 8 modules down to 6, each at ~70V.
LR version gets 6 modules in series, and base version gets just 4 in series (270V max).
I am sure of only one thing: I am wrong.
I've already started to object but than redone the known numbers and I have to agree, they do not fit 8 module configuration at all. Elon said 310 for LR, but there are pics of cars reporting 315.
315/220 = 1.43, 310/220 = 1.41
Indeed something I would expect from 3:2 config.
What about voltages though?
I don't see those three modules running in series though, 220 would end up being 260V max, kinda low. But on the other hand I also don't see them being in parallel at 400V each. To many HV pieces.
I'd guess, they have reduced those 8 modules down to 6, each at ~70V.
LR version gets 6 modules in series, and base version gets just 4 in series (270V max).
I am sure of only one thing: I am wrong.
I'm curious: Since you don't trust the reported 310 number, why would you trust the reported 220 number?
Less voltage means more current and wiring loss for driving and charging. Also a proportionately lower top speed/ power number.
They may have the same number of modules, but less cells in each. Keeps the mechanical strength aspect and commonality factors high.
LargeHamCollider
Battery cells != scalable
wk057 just shot this down along with the C and D quote, apparently there are 4 modules with series groups of 23, 25, 25 and 23 cells. The small pack is made by removing cells from each module.
Link: Rumor: Model 3 to use new 4416 battery cell
As we wait for the semi event in September, here are some pictures of the Freightliner Inspiration autonomous prototype truck. I'm very curious to see the interior of Tesla's semi. Those ugly brake pull tabs (red octagon and yellow square) are standard on every semi.
Last edited:
While this information is old I didn't see it shared here, and it should help estimate what Tesla will/needs to do.
From the Nikola One video: They estimate that they can get 0.58 miles per kWh of electric energy. And they use 100kg of H2 to get 2,330kWh, 70% efficient, for 1,351 miles of range. (And they use 320 kWh of Li-ion batteries to buffer the power from the fuel cell.)
So how many kWh of batteries can you get in the same weight/space as 100kg of H2, the holding tank, and the fuel cell?
So it would seem if Tesla can put 1MWh of batteries in a Semi you could get a range of almost 600 miles; which seems reasonable to me. (The numbers probably wouldn't be that good because the required batteries would weigh more than Hydrogen would.)
From the Nikola One video: They estimate that they can get 0.58 miles per kWh of electric energy. And they use 100kg of H2 to get 2,330kWh, 70% efficient, for 1,351 miles of range. (And they use 320 kWh of Li-ion batteries to buffer the power from the fuel cell.)
So how many kWh of batteries can you get in the same weight/space as 100kg of H2, the holding tank, and the fuel cell?
So it would seem if Tesla can put 1MWh of batteries in a Semi you could get a range of almost 600 miles; which seems reasonable to me. (The numbers probably wouldn't be that good because the required batteries would weigh more than Hydrogen would.)
some numbers from Mirai: FC stack is about 2kW/kg, probably 200 kW with such big buffer could be enough but let's 300 kW 150kg,
Hydrogen tank 5,7 weight %, Ok make it 6%, we are looking for 1650kg for tanks. I didn't find info on weight of air filtering system and DC-DC converter.
1800 kg gives about 500 kWh at cell level, probably about 400 kWh at module level with coolant and 300-350 kWh at pack level for Tesla.
1 other big area of weight diff could be Nikola's 320 kWh pack, I'm quite sure at same weight you could stuff way more Panasonic's cells
This is interesting. Using their assumption of 0.58 mile/kWh and 7.5 mpg diesel leads to a displacement ratio of 12.93 kWh/gal diesel.
Tesla may offer a battery with 5000 cycle life. Thus, over the life of 1 kWh battery it can supply 5000 kWh, contribute 2900 miles to life range and offset 387 gallons or 9.2 barrels of diesel.
dc_h
Active Member
Jhm
I'm assuming the other thing with the semi will be a Sprinter style commercial van. It requires relatively little design relative to a car and would, like a Semi, have a big impact on gas consumption per vehicle. This is a big market and serves many of the same big customers. They only need one of UPS, FedEx, Walmart or a couple other large shippers under them to support a commercial van.
What impact would 50,000 or 100,000 annual Sprinters have on the market. I assume they run 200 urban miles a day and a gas version would get about 12-14 mpg. I assume this is about 10 times the fuel of an average car. Relatively modest production seems to have a pretty big impact.
I'm assuming the other thing with the semi will be a Sprinter style commercial van. It requires relatively little design relative to a car and would, like a Semi, have a big impact on gas consumption per vehicle. This is a big market and serves many of the same big customers. They only need one of UPS, FedEx, Walmart or a couple other large shippers under them to support a commercial van.
What impact would 50,000 or 100,000 annual Sprinters have on the market. I assume they run 200 urban miles a day and a gas version would get about 12-14 mpg. I assume this is about 10 times the fuel of an average car. Relatively modest production seems to have a pretty big impact.
10,000 psi/700 bar Hydrogen is 42kg/m^3, so 2.38m^3 for the 100kg of hydrogen itself.
If Model S packs are 112" x 70" x 5" it'd be 0.642m^3, so you'd be able to get about 370kWh of Model S battery in place of the hydrogen. At 0.58mi/kWh that would only be good for a bit over 200 miles. But, Nikola has a 320kWh battery as well. If Tesla's density were the same, and you add and round to a total of 700kWh, at 0.58mi/kWh it'd be 400 miles of range.
11 hours at 70mph would be 770 miles. Moar battery.
Last edited:
Trying to run the numbers on the Tesla Semi again.
The best source i could find was estimating $0.403 in fuel costs per mile in 2015, This number (source has historical data) correlates reasonably well with average diesel prices over time. Using 2017 average prices now, fuel should be around $0.38 per mile.
Maintenance is about $0.15 per mile, adding up to a total of $0.53 per mile.
There were figures quoted upthread that the nikola truck was aiming for 0.58 miles per kWh. Lets assume the same for the Tesla semi. At $0.12 per kWh, the per mile fuel cost comes to $0.21 per mile. Assume Tesla Semi can run at $0.10 per mile in maintenance for a total cost of $0.31 per mile.
That leaves us at a $0.22 per mile advantage. Over a million miles, that is $220K.
This is money could be split 3 ways - additional upfront costs for the electric truck, margin for tesla (as either increased upfront semi price or marked up energy costs), and savings to the customer.
I am assuming an initial pack size of 600-800 kWh, which would be the sweet-spot for certain routes that could run 100-150k miles per year. Even assuming a generous $200 per kWh battery costs, the 800 kWh battery would be $160k, still leaving $60k to be split between Tesla and the customer. If Tesla can build the rest of the truck (cab, chassis, electric motors) cheaper than an ICE truck, the economics could be even more compelling and I think they easily can.
In fact, the calculations can accommodate a 20% margin for both the battery and the truck. The rest of the 60k could be split as energy markup / customer savings.
Also, using a 800 kWh battery, the total number of charge / discharge cycles is ~2150 for a million miles. If we assume a 5000 cycle capability, the numbers start to look even better, though we'd be at 10 years life.
PS: I am not a trucker, nor am I into logistics. So please poke holes.
The best source i could find was estimating $0.403 in fuel costs per mile in 2015, This number (source has historical data) correlates reasonably well with average diesel prices over time. Using 2017 average prices now, fuel should be around $0.38 per mile.
Maintenance is about $0.15 per mile, adding up to a total of $0.53 per mile.
There were figures quoted upthread that the nikola truck was aiming for 0.58 miles per kWh. Lets assume the same for the Tesla semi. At $0.12 per kWh, the per mile fuel cost comes to $0.21 per mile. Assume Tesla Semi can run at $0.10 per mile in maintenance for a total cost of $0.31 per mile.
That leaves us at a $0.22 per mile advantage. Over a million miles, that is $220K.
This is money could be split 3 ways - additional upfront costs for the electric truck, margin for tesla (as either increased upfront semi price or marked up energy costs), and savings to the customer.
I am assuming an initial pack size of 600-800 kWh, which would be the sweet-spot for certain routes that could run 100-150k miles per year. Even assuming a generous $200 per kWh battery costs, the 800 kWh battery would be $160k, still leaving $60k to be split between Tesla and the customer. If Tesla can build the rest of the truck (cab, chassis, electric motors) cheaper than an ICE truck, the economics could be even more compelling and I think they easily can.
In fact, the calculations can accommodate a 20% margin for both the battery and the truck. The rest of the 60k could be split as energy markup / customer savings.
Also, using a 800 kWh battery, the total number of charge / discharge cycles is ~2150 for a million miles. If we assume a 5000 cycle capability, the numbers start to look even better, though we'd be at 10 years life.
PS: I am not a trucker, nor am I into logistics. So please poke holes.
Very cool. Tesla could use a bunch of these vans too. Where is this Sprinter idea coming from? I've seen another reference to it, but have not be following closely enough to know what it triggering it.
I looked up the Sprinter and found that it is diesel. Of course, a lot of other commercial vans are gasoline powered. So the fuel offset of commercial vans will be both diesel and gasoline. Some major European cities will ban diesel by 2025. So this market is cracked wide open for alternatives to diesel vans.
Yes, Tesla seems to be avoiding the medium duty market where EV seems to make a lot of sense. They undoubtedly considered all vehicle types, including buses. They picked semi as the best strategic move. One reason may be that the chassis did not require a lot of new R&D.
I think they are going after the semi truck (on highway & heavy haul) market because it's the one application where traditional truck OEMs seem to think it can't be done. The medium duty/urban/bus market is already flooded with different types of hybrid/BEV powertrain options. Also, JB mentioned the on highway & heavy haul market consumes a significant amount of fuel, so it's a good strategic move based on their mission statement.
dc_h
Active Member
I work for a consumer goods manufacturer that I will not name. We bottle water, soda and an array of snacks. We operate one of the nations largest fleets of trucks and like FedEx and UPS we use Semi and commercial vans depending on the logistical requirements. UPS and FedEx use semis, but probably 10 times as many local Sprinter and larger Grumman style trucks.
The idea is mine, as far as I know. If Tesla is working with UPS or FedEx I would guess there is more potential savings on the smaller format sprinters.
Do most truckers pull non-stop 11 hour runs, without a stop for bathroom or food? If so, that seems dangerous, and perhaps being forced to stop isn't a bad thing.
Assuming that charging that 700kWh pack in a reasonable time (30-45 minutes ideally, realistically around an hour even with clever methods of charging segments of the pack in parallel might be optimistic) is possible in some fashion, they could stop half way, hook up the charge, eat lunch, take care of business, and then be back on the road as charging finishes.
Similar threads
