Where is the Model X Test Mule? Is there one?

[ohmman]

Going in this afternoon to have my BS detector cleaned and reconfigured...

 

[mikes_fsd]

More interestingly... (leak OP) claims the nose cone is gone.

Is that referring to the black part of the pic below? Or the whole thing between the headlights (including the T logo)?

 

[MikeC]

Not quite. Likely, but not for certain. Doug didn't confirm that the request was from Tesla (vs a third-party that created the mount we think we saw), and even if it was, 'proprietary info' doesn't confirm everything (or anything specific) that we think we learned from the image.

Agree it's not 100%, but sure seems likely. doug's post did say "friendly request from Tesla" so I'm not sure what needs to be confirmed there. The "proprietary info" does confirm that Tesla doesn't want it posted on the internet, so that tells us something right there.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I've been asked about X battery options and I'd like for everyone to get the answer.

The model X will have only 85 and 60 battery.

The form factor has changed slightly. Comparing to 2012-S, the batteries are roughly 20% better. However instead of putting more batteries in the car, the efficiency is used to take weight out. When you model battery size vs. range there is a point at which increasing battery size has diminishing returns (due to added weight). That point rests almost squarely at 85kwhr for the next 3 years. Current improvements in battery energy density are not best used to add more pack power, but to reduce the weight of the vehicle allowing longer range with the same 85kwhr pack.
X is slightly overweight as it stands now and every attempt is being made to save weight wherever possible. Considering it is a much larger car, the efficiency gains in batteries will show themselves when it achieves the same range as the S.

Can you clarify this? Did you mean the following:

• The form factor DID NOT change, the cell is still 18650, i.e. 18mm in diameter, 65mm long
• Each cell is roughly the same weight, but holds 20% more energy
• The 85kWh variant therefore will have 20% less cells, may be 5,696 cells instead of 7104
• This saves at least 140 lbs from the battery pack (counting savings from the cells only, as the pack is probably changed little)
• The new battery DID NOT gain in "efficiency", but did gain in volumetric and weight energy density

 

[Kevin Harney]

Is that referring to the black part of the pic below? Or the whole thing between the headlights (including the T logo)?
View attachment 68728

I hope the hood drops below the Tesla T and has the T on it and that ugly black thing is GONE !!

 

[JRP3]

The form factor has changed slightly. Comparing to 2012-S, the batteries are roughly 20% better. However instead of putting more batteries in the car, the efficiency is used to take weight out. When you model battery size vs. range there is a point at which increasing battery size has diminishing returns (due to added weight). That point rests almost squarely at 85kwhr for the next 3 years. Current improvements in battery energy density are not best used to add more pack power, but to reduce the weight of the vehicle allowing longer range with the same 85kwhr pack.
X is slightly overweight as it stands now and every attempt is being made to save weight wherever possible. Considering it is a much larger car, the efficiency gains in batteries will show themselves when it achieves the same range as the S.

I have some problems with this line of reasoning. "Efficiency gains in batteries", what does that mean? What does "roughly 20% better" mean? 20% improvement in energy density? That would mean a bit over 100kWh pack would be possible for the same space and weight as the 85kWh pack, which would provide significant range increase. Since range is more important in steady state long distance driving than around town, and since aerodynamics are more important in steady state long distance driving than weight, I don't think a 20% reduction in pack weight would provide as much range as a 20% increase in pack capacity.

 

[NigelM]

Likewise, it seems he knows no better than us whether there will be a 60kwh in the Model X, which ultimately seems unlikely at the time due to the lack of a S60D.

Check the Tesla Motors Model X page and they mention 60 and 85kWh in several places:

 

[eepic]

Going in this afternoon to have my BS detector cleaned and reconfigured...

Gonna do the same. Assuming the poster is a third party vendor and not a TM employee.. it's quite possible he gets a rendering/info only accurate with respect to whatever he is vendoring (roof rack maybe?). Nose cone, battery size, etc. information could be withheld even to him by TM, in case of such a leak.

 

[Johan]

Can you clarify this? Did you mean the following:

• The form factor DID NOT change, the cell is still 18650, i.e. 18mm in diameter, 65mm long
• Each cell is roughly the same weight, but holds 20% more energy
• The 85kWh variant therefore will have 20% less cells, may be 5,696 cells instead of 7104
• This saves at least 140 lbs from the battery pack (counting savings from the cells only, as the pack is probably changed little)
• The new battery DID NOT gain in "efficiency", but did gain in volumetric and weight energy density

Wondering the same!

With the S and X so similar in the skateboard I think we can be sure they'll stick to 18650. So the 20% reduction would likely result in identical packs as the S but them being 20% empty/ballast for the same capacity (60/85)? Huh, would be irritating to know your 85 could've been a 105 if just those holes in the pack below you were stuffed with cells. I know, he said the sweet spot for now is 85 but a 105 would still go further.

 

[RichardL]

Often each vendor would get a different sub-set of info - that way you can identify the guilty party after a leak

 

[vgrinshpun]

Wondering the same!

With the S and X so similar in the skateboard I think we can be sure they'll stick to 18650. So the 20% reduction would likely result in identical packs as the S but them being 20% empty/ballast for the same capacity (60/85)? Huh, would be irritating to know your 85 could've been a 105 if just those holes in the pack below you were stuffed with cells. I know, he said the sweet spot for now is 85 but a 105 would still go further.

I am really curious if the OP responds because there are additional implications from this info. During the ER call Elon was adamant that 30% reduction in cost is due to improvement in manufacturing efficiency only. So if one applies an additional 20% savings due to quantity of cells, the total savings comes to whopping 44%. This could have a major implication for the gross margin trajectory for MX, MS and Model 3.

 

[techmaven]

I am really curious if the OP responds because there are additional implications from this info. During the ER call Elon was adamant that 30% reduction in cost is due to improvement in manufacturing efficiency only. So if one applies an additional 20% savings due to quantity of cells, the total savings comes to whopping 44%. This could have a major implication for the gross margin trajectory for MX, MS and Model 3.

I believe you can't multiply the effects. I think he saying between the supply chain efficiency gains, the new cell form factor, and the new cell chemistry, a 30% reduction in cost.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I believe you can't multiply the effects. I think he saying between the supply chain efficiency gains, the new cell form factor, and the new cell chemistry, a 30% reduction in cost.

I surely believe I can...:biggrin:

Elons words from the Q3 call:

Yes, to be precise about our prediction was that we felt comfortable with at least a 30% improvement in cost or reduction in cost just based on the location and economies of scale. That's without taking any technology improvements into account and we will certainly do technology improvements. If we can't get to 30% even without technology improvements, somebody should shoot us because that would be in complete defiance of economies of scale and obvious cost savings.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2647055-tesla-motors-tsla-ceo-elon-musk-on-q3-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript

 

[flankspeed8]

Check the Tesla Motors Model X page and they mention 60 and 85kWh in several places:

View attachment 68731

Still not sure why they would bother with a 60 kWh option. Clearly this thing is going to be priced at the high end and is a premium vehicle. I read posts of people saying there biggest mistake was going with a 60 over a 85. With a larger CUV trying to tow or haul, it seems that more critical to have the larger pack. Maybe for taxi/private car fleets?

 

[Merrill]

I'm sorry but these latest threads today have got me feeling like a Jack__s. Here is what the new nose cone will look like.

 

[MassModel3]

I'm not convinced based on this picture alone. There's a line going down the inside of the roof that appears to be perhaps a ribbon cable from the rear view mirror assembly on the windscreen to the aft of the forward compartment. I don't think Tesla would have a cable running down the middle of a sun roof, but you never know. However, I am in agreement that it looks [ahem.. looked!] like perhaps a roof rack assembly.

Then again, if somebody (not saying it was me) did save the file (not saying that I did), and if that somebody looked at the file name (of the file they may or may not have saved), it might say something about "pano roof" in the file name.

:wink:

 

[Papafox]

I have some problems with this line of reasoning. "Efficiency gains in batteries", what does that mean? What does "roughly 20% better" mean? 20% improvement in energy density? That would mean a bit over 100kWh pack would be possible for the same space and weight as the 85kWh pack, which would provide significant range increase. Since range is more important in steady state long distance driving than around town, and since aerodynamics are more important in steady state long distance driving than weight, I don't think a 20% reduction in pack weight would provide as much range as a 20% increase in pack capacity.

I concur with JRP3 that for highway driving the addition of 20% more battery capacity would make a larger difference in range than weight savings of 20% on the battery. Aerodynamic drag is a factor of the speed squared, and at highway speeds resistance associated with weight becomes a smaller and smaller part of the equation vs. aerodynamic drag.

 

[Nubo]

Thank goodness if it is !! That thing was the ugliest part of the Model S.

I agree. I hate "faux grilles" with a passion. Now in the case of the Tesla I recall reading that the nosecone had a functional purpose as a "radio window" for some purpose; so I could abide. But who knows? Maybe the X uses a material for the "bonnet" that makes a separate "nosecone" unnecessary? Maybe they had to dig deep for aerodynamic improvements. I'd love to see a smooth unadulterated surface there. Grilles are so 20th-century.

 

[Ingenieur]

Im not sure i understand it but if battery weight is reduced by 20% it means total car weight is down ca 4%, which is good but why would i upgrade the current S battery for the same one? Thats like 2-3% more range.

Also weight reduction doesnt mean cost per Kwh is down 20% (Cost per KG is down though ;-))

 

[mdemetri]

Sorry folks. Got a friendly request from Tesla to take it down as it's "proprietary info".

So does this mean that we will never be able to see a spy photo of the Model X beta on TMC because Tesla will claim "proprietary info" and the Mods will have to take it away??