Why we won't get a 60 Kw base battery

[alseTrick]

3 buyers are likely not going to upgrade their battery as often as S/X buyers. A less affluent segment of the market isn't going to purchase as many upgrades as the S/X segment.

So putting in a software limited battery on all vehicles when it's likely far fewer will "unlock" the upgrade doesn't make sense.

 

[Topher]

kWh (kiloWatt-Hours) not kW (kiloWatts).

Thank you kindly.

 

[JeffK]

Every indication is that very few MX/MS 60 owners are unlocking to 75. There's a reason why Tesla canceled the 60s. It was a stop gap to increase short term demand, and didn't make long-term financial sense.

On the contrary, Tesla was reporting that most owners opted for the 75 kWh in some way or another (either at purchase or otherwise) and the software locked battery was available for a few months shy of a year. It is the cancelling of the 60 kWh model which is increasing short term demand.
In my opinion of the move from 2016 was that the entire reason for the software limited battery choice was a beta test for the Model 3. This was to see how consumers will react. In addition, a recent poll was suggesting that nearly 40% of prospective Model 3 buyers are wanting battery upgrades.

Oh, I forgot, let's do some simple math:

Planned GF output for 2018 is 50 GWh 1/3 will go to storage products leaving 33.3 GWh for cars.

So far we've seen nothing to indicate S/X will get "2170s" right away for that means they are earmarked for 400,000 Model 3s

400,000 * 75 kWh = 30 GWh... That's a pretty interesting coincidence.

 

[Rashomon]

On the contrary, Tesla was reporting that most owners opted for the 75 kWh in some way or another (either at purchase or otherwise) and the software locked battery was available for a few months shy of a year. It is the cancelling of the 60 kWh model which is increasing short term demand.
In my opinion of the move from 2016 was that the entire reason for the software limited battery choice was a beta test for the Model 3. This was to see how consumers will react. In addition, a recent poll was suggesting that nearly 40% of prospective Model 3 buyers are wanting battery upgrades.

Oh, I forgot, let's do some simple math:

Planned GF output for 2018 is 50 GWh 1/3 will go to storage products leaving 33.3 GWh for cars.

So far we've seen nothing to indicate S/X will get "2170s" right away for that means they are earmarked for 400,000 Model 3s

400,000 * 75 kWh = 30 GWh... That's a pretty interesting coincidence.

Check out our own forum: Did you upgrade 60 ->75?
Only 5 percent answering the survey have upgraded, and only another 5 percent definitely plan on upgrading. Most of the MS 60 owners responding are asking "why upgrade?", as they get much of the benefit of an upgrade already by being able to routinely charge to 100 percent of rated capacity. A software-unlockable pack for the M3 is not happening, at least not until battery prices are a lot, lot lower.
The simple math has to do with costs and margins, not with manufacturing capacity. Tesla Energy and the MY will use the gigafactory capacity quickly enough.

 

[JeffK]

Check out our own forum: Did you upgrade 60 ->75?
Only 5 percent answering the survey have upgraded, and only another 5 percent definitely plan on upgrading. Most of the MS 60 owners responding are asking "why upgrade?", as they get much of the benefit of an upgrade already by being able to routinely charge to 100 percent of rated capacity. A software-unlockable pack for the M3 is not happening, at least not until battery prices are a lot, lot lower.
The simple math has to do with costs and margins, not with manufacturing capacity. Tesla Energy and the MY will use the gigafactory capacity quickly enough.

We've already accounted for output allotted to Tesla energy and I'm still doubting Model Y will see the light of day in 2018.

You are only thinking short term and not about the margins for the life of the car such as during resale of a used car (CPO). The poll on our own forum represents a small portion of the overall population. There are many ways to make up that $1500.

Even when you look at that survey you linked to, 77.6 percent total said that have/would upgrade if the price was right. (since multiple votes are allowed it totals over 100% so it's a poor survey at best)

 

[arnis]

If there's a 20kWh difference in sizes, cost to the user for the pack will likely be 2 to 3 times OEM cost, so figure somewhere from $5000 to $8000 to upgrade.

Actually interesting topic.
I would cross out the 8000 number. It is not acceptable for M3 segment. For S/X, yes.
I give my best bet, difference between RWD 55 and RWD 70 would be $5k.
And even part of that is due to 70 will have greater performance as inevitable bonus.
$6500 would already be a hit between the legs. Extremely expensive upgrade few will choose.
People would be able to tick every other box for that money.
I'm not planning on getting anything above 55kWh, except if price is up to $3500 (10%), which is unlikely.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Actually interesting topic.
I would cross out the 8000 number. It is not acceptable for M3 segment. For S/X, yes.
I give my best bet, difference between RWD 55 and RWD 70 would be $5k.
And even part of that is due to 70 will have greater performance as inevitable bonus.
$6500 would already be a hit between the legs. Extremely expensive upgrade few will choose.
People would be able to tick every other box for that money.
I'm not planning on getting anything above 55kWh, except if price is up to $3500 (10%), which is unlikely.

Well speak for yourself. Just looking at the 3 series for the price differences, it used to be 328i $35,795, 335i $43,295, for a $7500 difference. Now the gap widens to 320i $33,450, 340i $45,800 for a $12,350 difference (even if you look at 330i $38,750, that is still $7,050).

$8000 is not really anything out of the ordinary for going up in trim even in this segment.

 

[Sonny Daze]

Actually interesting topic.
I would cross out the 8000 number. It is not acceptable for M3 segment. For S/X, yes.
I give my best bet, difference between RWD 55 and RWD 70 would be $5k.
And even part of that is due to 70 will have greater performance as inevitable bonus.
$6500 would already be a hit between the legs. Extremely expensive upgrade few will choose.
People would be able to tick every other box for that money.
I'm not planning on getting anything above 55kWh, except if price is up to $3500 (10%), which is unlikely.

Just throw this out there.

Upgrading a S from 60 to 75 (w/ no options) is a ~9.5% increase. But that's just a software change.

Upgrading a S 75D to 100D (w/ no options) is a ~16.5% increase.

 

[Sonny Daze]

Well speak for yourself. Just looking at the 3 series for the price differences, it used to be 328i $35,795, 335i $43,295, for a $7500 difference. Now the gap widens to 320i $33,450, 340i $45,800 for a $12,350 difference (even if you look at 330i $38,750, that is still $7,050).

$8000 is not really anything out of the ordinary for going up in trim even in this segment.

I don't think you can compare. You get more "stuff" upgrading a 3-series that you don't get upgrading the battery on a Tesla.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't think you can compare. You get more "stuff" upgrading a 3-series that you don't get upgrading the battery on a Tesla.

If there truly is only two battery choices (and they are physical differences, not software), I don't expect that going up one trim is only a battery difference either. It'll be similar to the S60 vs S85. Where the 85 got the supercharging bonus included free (plus faster supercharging speeds and performance).

 

[Model 3]

So far we've seen nothing to indicate S/X will get "2170s" right away for that means they are earmarked for 400,000 Model 3s

Did not Elon say that the S+X would get the 21-70 late this year?

 

[JeffK]

Did not Elon say that the S+X would get the 21-70 late this year?

Not that I've seen/heard except for one person on reddit who was on an investor call. We all expect it of course... remember too that their contract with Panasonic for 18650 cells was through the end of this year.

 

[Red Sage]

I believe that the Original Post simply outlines the parameters of the 'Enough Principle' for electric vehicles. It is sound, reasonable, understandable, and nevertheless entirely wrong. I am more a proponent of the 'Overkill Factor' instead -- more than enough is probably just right. But that is just my opinion, and isn't sound, or reasonable, and is often misunderstood.

 

[internalaudit]

Besides the battery option and AWD (not available until late 2017/early 2018 at the earliest), what other options would cost more than $3.5-4k USD? I didn't bother configuring a Model S on My Tesla.

Maybe those who opt for the 75 would get their RWD sooner?

 

[Candleflame]

I guess if you live in California, and only travel on routes with superchargers, in mostly good weather, you can say that. But I tell people the exact opposite: That range is king. That's why Tesla is so great -- because of its long range. I've guess you've never been on the highway having to take it slow because the nav says you won't make it otherwise. That's not uncommon to many of us. The more range, the better, in my view. It's one of the most important upgrades.

Yeah it's always them cruisers who live in warm USA states with low speed limits and plenty of superchargers who say that 60kwh should be enough for everyone.

 

[Petra]

Besides the battery option and AWD (not available until late 2017/early 2018 at the earliest), what other options would cost more than $3.5-4k USD? I didn't bother configuring a Model S on My Tesla

Well, enhanced Autopilot + full self driving currently costs $8k...

 

[Red Sage]

Well, the first reservations for Model S were $5,000 down, but by early 2014 it had dropped to only $2,500 down. And Reservations for Model 3 started at only $1,000... So, maybe the Full Self Driving option willl be only $1,600-to-$4,000 on the less expensive car...?

 

[EVNow]

The biggest thing that will decide the base battery size is - apart from cost, volume - what is the safe lower limit which will allow you to make it between superchargers in winter.

I believe this is the main reason Model S 40 kWh didn't have supercharger capability and was finally scrapped.

 

[Petra]

Well, the first reservations for Model S were $5,000 down, but by early 2014 it had dropped to only $2,500 down. And Reservations for Model 3 started at only $1,000... So, maybe the Full Self Driving option willl be only $1,600-to-$4,000 on the less expensive car...?

It would certainly be nice for that to happen, but I'd think they'd have to follow with an equal price reduction on the S/X given that they're supposedly the same AP2 hardware systems with the same capability. Though, I feel like leaving the pricing as is will just result in a really low take rate for AP in the Model 3. The current pricing would even make me think twice about it if I were configuring a new Model S or X... I mean, I really like AP1 in my Model S but that only cost me $2500.

 

[Candleflame]

I bought a once base 70 khw battery (230 mile EPA range), and If there was any battery smaller than it available, I would've saved the money and bought that instead. As long as the battery is sufficient for your daily commute, you don't need the extra 20 miles, it just doesn't make any difference. With the superchargers, you won’t be able to skip a charger with 20-30 miles and the only difference would be you staying at the charger for a extra 5 minutes.

Your 230 mile EPA range will quickly shrink to 120 miles driving 90mph on the motorway. This has nothing to do with range anxiety. it's just impractical.