Why Model S/X will not see 2170 cells any time soon.

[henderrj]

Why I think the Model S and X will not see 2170 cells for 18 months or more.

Why change what works? 100 kWh is, almost always, enough.

It may be difficult to engineer a battery pack that fits the current design with the 2170’s.​

Why go to the great effort to redesign for the 100 with 18650’s if you know you are close to using the 2170s?

The Models S and X no longer occupy Elon’s dreams.

They’ve done their job, now it’s time to concentrate on the future. (This, by the way, could be very good news for future iterations of these vehicles – designers will be free to add all the creature comforts so disdained by our great leader.)

Other firms are taking on the EV battle; Tesla no longer has to move them in that direction.​

Other products will eat up all the available inventory for a year or more.

Tesla Energy. Powerwalls but mostly Powerpacks. Tesla may need another gigafactory before they even catch up to this demand, let alone the following vehicles. Remember, JB “may love batteries more than cars”. And, in all truth, this may do more to move us to renewable energy use than even the S/X/3 do.

Model 3. Yes, “New technology in the S/X first. But he’ll say (with some truth) “this isn’t really new technology, just repackaging”. Remember, we’re talking a half million of these in the first 18 months.

Tesla Pickup. These will be battery hogs. Of course, they may be built on the S/X chassis, which would complicate things. Two packs per?

Tesla Semis. These will be battery vacuums. Again, they could use multiple current packs, but why?

Tesla minibus. Do I think this will be out before the S/X gets 2170s?! No, probably not. But maybe. And, if it is the same chassis as the S/X​

Just my musings while my wife watches some show i can't stand. Am I out of my mind? Or thrown off by the terrible acting?

 

[RogerHScott]

Why go to the great effort to redesign for the 100 with 18650’s if you know you are close to using the 2170s?

Because one of the most reliable ways of ensuring that version 2.3 comes out much, much later than version 2.2 is to say "Hey, we're
about to put new techno-wiz-bang-thingee X into 3.0, why not just slip it into 2.3 and get it over with?"

The Models S and X no longer occupy Elon’s dreams.

They’ve done their job, now it’s time to concentrate on the future.

There's nothing like a stable, established platform to use as the base for rolling out new technology. Putting everything new together
into one package was a necessity in Tesla's early years, but is now a risk they no longer need to take.

Other firms are taking on the EV battle; Tesla no longer has to move them in that direction.

I'm not sure we're to the point yet where these other firms wouldn't gladly drop their EV programs if there wasn't ongoing pressure.

Other products will eat up all the available inventory for a year or more.

In general, a legitimate concern, but if Tesla only puts the 2170s in the highest-end S/Xs the volume impact won't be that large.

I wouldn't write off Tesla's interest in the S/X cash cows just yet. Those cars will be paying the bills for quite some time.

 

[James Anders]

Why change what works? 100 kWh is, almost always, enough.

Nothing to keep them from using fewer cells and still keep 100 kWh. It is all going to hinge on how many cells the GF can pump out.
If they can produce more cells than Model 3 production requires then there's no reason not to use the 2170s.

 

[henderrj]

Why change what works? 100 kWh is, almost always, enough.

Nothing to keep them from using fewer cells and still keep 100 kWh. It is all going to hinge on how many cells the GF can pump out.
If they can produce more cells than Model 3 production requires then there's no reason not to use the 2170s.

You are, of course, correct. But I don't think the biggest user of 2170 sales is going to be Model 3, or any new vehicles. Tesla energy will suck up 90% of it I'm pretty sure.

 

[henderrj]

Because one of the most reliable ways of ensuring that version 2.3 comes out much, much later than version 2.2 is to say "Hey, we're
about to put new techno-wiz-bang-thingee X into 3.0, why not just slip it into 2.3 and get it over with?"


There's nothing like a stable, established platform to use as the base for rolling out new technology. Putting everything new together
into one package was a necessity in Tesla's early years, but is now a risk they no longer need to take.


I'm not sure we're to the point yet where these other firms wouldn't gladly drop their EV programs if there wasn't ongoing pressure.


In general, a legitimate concern, but if Tesla only puts the 2170s in the highest-end S/Xs the volume impact won't be that large.

I wouldn't write off Tesla's interest in the S/X cash cows just yet. Those cars will be paying the bills for quite some time.

All good points, but I still think I'm right!

And I definitely think you are correct about the cash cow!

 

[jsmay311]

But I don't think the biggest user of 2170 sales is going to be Model 3, or any new vehicles. Tesla energy will suck up 90% of it I'm pretty sure.

There's almost zero market for grid battery storage right now in the US. Powerwalls don't make economic sense for (the vast, vast, vast majority of) individuals, and solar isn't yet a big enough slice of the energy pie for utilities to need to invest in a bunch of expensive battery grid storage. Not yet at least.

Maybe in some European countries where solar currently makes up a bigger percentage of electric generation there might be moves to invest more in battery storage. But at least in the short term, I'm very skeptical.

 

[WarpedOne]

It's good we have mirrors, how could we predict the future without them!

 

[Nietschy]

One point from me:

• They will have a very big factory to built them.
• They built them next to the factory = no transportation costs
• More energy dense
• cheaper

Not a hard to think about this format in S and X. Just make the base a few millimeters taller and put more cells in it. They need this tech for the M3 anyway... So just test it in a low volume on current cars without telling anyone like they always do.

 

[henderrj]

There's almost zero market for grid battery storage right now in the US. Powerwalls don't make economic sense for (the vast, vast, vast majority of) individuals, and solar isn't yet a big enough slice of the energy pie for utilities to need to invest in a bunch of expensive battery grid storage. Not yet at least.

Maybe in some European countries where solar currently makes up a bigger percentage of electric generation there might be moves to invest more in battery storage. But at least in the short term, I'm very skeptical.

I understand your skepticism and if Powerwalls were all that we were talking about I would definitely agree with you. But it's grid storage that's the big deal. That's where you're going to see 99% of those batteries go.

 

[henderrj]

One point from me:

• They will have a very big factory to built them.
• They built them next to the factory = no transportation costs
• More energy dense
• cheaper

Not a hard to think about this format in S and X. Just make the base a few millimeters taller and put more cells in it. They need this tech for the M3 anyway... So just test it in a low volume on current cars without telling anyone like they always do.

I do wonder if you are not correct. But, once again, it's really just the chemistry that they have to test. Could they be already doing that with the 100 kilowatt hour battery?

 

[GSP]

There's almost zero market for grid battery storage right now in the US. Powerwalls don't make economic sense for (the vast, vast, vast majority of) individuals, and solar isn't yet a big enough slice of the energy pie for utilities to need to invest in a bunch of expensive battery grid storage. Not yet at least.

Maybe in some European countries where solar currently makes up a bigger percentage of electric generation there might be moves to invest more in battery storage. But at least in the short term, I'm very skeptical.

Batteries are already less expensive than combustion turbines. They also require no water or fuel or air pollution permits.

For islands, SolarPV+Battery installations are already less expensive than just the fuel to operate their diesel generators. Check out the Tesla SolarCity projects in American Samoa and in Kauai.

I think Tesla will have more demand for the PowerPack than the gigafactory can provide.

GSP

 

[croman]

I agree -- grid scale energy storage will be huge in 2017 for Tesla Energy. Their proof of concept in American Samoa and Kauai demonstrate the unique blend of advantages of battery storage, especially for nondispatchable renewable energy (think wind turbines not directly connected to high voltage transmission) or intermittent sources like PV.

Its not just islands (though they benefit the most due to their isolated geographic positions), California has a major order for grid storage solutions from Tesla. Tesla Wins Massive Contract to Power the California Grid

This is the future and Tesla will have major demand. Plus, another reason 2170 won't be pushed into the S too soon is that sales are still robust for the current iterations. I don't see Tesla needing the marketing push until the 3 is ready for launch. I think 2-3 months before the 3 actually ramps up, you'll see the S refreshed with 2170 batteries. Might be early 2018 but we'll know more in 2-3 months when Elon does Part III.

 

[nico180]

there are numerous persons on this forum and in real life arguing about there next car to buy after there current model S;

a current model S

in the few years i see model S leap forward on all fronts. So of they 'stop' developing the S there should be another premium car configuration available for current owners of this premium

for me its simple, if there is not comparable car they should push the maximum in development in the current model

and while tesla has its continous developing platform, why whould we ever need another model S like? if development can keep improving its a new model each time upgrades happen

 

[henderrj]

I agree -- grid scale energy storage will be huge in 2017 for Tesla Energy. Their proof of concept in American Samoa and Kauai demonstrate the unique blend of advantages of battery storage, especially for nondispatchable renewable energy (think wind turbines not directly connected to high voltage transmission) or intermittent sources like PV.

Its not just islands (though they benefit the most due to their isolated geographic positions), California has a major order for grid storage solutions from Tesla. Tesla Wins Massive Contract to Power the California Grid

This is the future and Tesla will have major demand. Plus, another reason 2170 won't be pushed into the S too soon is that sales are still robust for the current iterations. I don't see Tesla needing the marketing push until the 3 is ready for launch. I think 2-3 months before the 3 actually ramps up, you'll see the S refreshed with 2170 batteries. Might be early 2018 but we'll know more in 2-3 months when Elon does Part III.

Precisely correct on the grid analysis. I go back and forth about whether or not they'll put the 2170 s in the S/X before they do the 3. Just not sure!

 

[jbcarioca]

There's almost zero market for grid battery storage right now in the US. Powerwalls don't make economic sense for (the vast, vast, vast majority of) individuals, and solar isn't yet a big enough slice of the energy pie for utilities to need to invest in a bunch of expensive battery grid storage. Not yet at least.

Maybe in some European countries where solar currently makes up a bigger percentage of electric generation there might be moves to invest more in battery storage. But at least in the short term, I'm very skeptical.

Ah, Much of Canada is deeply involved in wind power, including Hydro-Quebec. Wind farms now produce 11% of Texas' electricity according to the Dallas news. On islands, in remote areas, anywhere winds are strong and consistent, wind power is already competitive with natural gas, today's conventional cheapest generating source. Tesla already have deployed on one island in Hawaii, and more will be coming. All over West Texas and adjoining high wind, low population areas teh advent of cheap storage permits load balancing at at level that was uneconomic only a couple of years ago. "almost zero...", not really, the demand is rising very rapidly. It is the installed base that is "almost zero" not demand.

And of course there is also photovoltaics, that are also improving rapidly and getting cheaper.

These developments will happen even when the Trump administration tries to kills them. The economics will prevail, and now grid battery storage is cheap enough.

 

[GregKo]

Keeping the same 100 power pack, the X and S will most likely weigh less when they migrate to the newer cell type. This alone will increase range and performance.

 

[Troy]

Could they be already doing that with the 100 kilowatt hour battery?

No, the current 100 kWh still uses 18650 cells. Elon said "The cell is the same". Source.

I recommend watching this video after 18:12. JB Straubel talks about cost reduction when energy density goes up.

 

[jbcarioca]

Directly on topic, I suppose we all expect Models S and X to be substantially revised or possibly replaced within the next 2-3 years. Replacing them entirely would allow simplified manufacturing, and updating of everything. However that also will cost a huge amount of capital.

The alternative of major revision may be the more practical choice. If so, 2170's would be a part of it, as well as elimination of the dreaded 12v battery, and repackaging to include all the goodies we all expect in cars of this class.

Either way I suspect we'll know the answer roughly a year from now, after the Model 3 has been successfully introduced. We might even know before then, but not too long after. Why? Because as Tesla doubles the Fremont physical space for production, actual numbers of vehicles capacity is planned to approach one million. S & X need to become much more efficient to produce in order to avoid interfering with the rest of the operation, which will probably see everything from Model 3 to Class 6 trucks produced there. Maybe some vehicles will be produced elsewhere, maybe lots of them, but for the foreseeable future those other operations will probably be CKD (complete knock-down) which will require both reno and Fremont to become even more efficient.

However the specifics evolve I think it is safe to assume that battery format variants will be minimized to reduce productions, among other things, while continuing investments will focus on the next generation(s) of energy storage.

Bluntly, we ought not become too preoccupied with 2170 as an issue. Four years from now Tesla will have moved the optimal solution to something else anyway, possibly even super-battery-capacitors or something else.

 

[henderrj]

Keeping the same 100 power pack, the X and S will most likely weigh less when they migrate to the newer cell type. This alone will increase range and performance.

Agreed, just not sure when they'll do it!

 

[henderrj]

No, the current 100 kWh still uses 18650 cells. Elon said "The cell is the same". Source.

I recommend watching this video after 18:12. JB Straubel talks about cost reduction when energy density goes up.

yes, the current battery packs do use the 18650s. My point was the chemistry could be the same in either format. And it is the chemistry that needs testing, the format not so much so. Still, lots of issues to figure out once one puts them in a battery pack. Clearly I vacillate!