Why we won't get a 60 Kw base battery

[Muhammad]

One thing I haven't understood on this forum lately is all those expecting the Model 3 to "beat" the Bolt in base model range. Here's why I think it’s not only a bad idea for Tesla, but also for consumers:


1) The difference is trivial, even at a 215 mile base. I see exactly zero buyers saying "I was cross-shopping the Bolt and the Model 3, but since the base model Bolt has AN ENTIRE 25 MORE MILES BASE RANGE!!! I coughed up the extra $2,500 and splurged for the Bolt." Tesla will essentially make zero more sales than it would if the base was 250 over 215 miles, especially since they're production constraint. This small increase in range matters to very few people in the real world, and you can expect most of them to either buy a bigger battery, or factor in time to supercharge in their day.

2) KwH are valuable, and Tesla has an immense demand for every battery module that exits the Gigafactory. For approximately every 18 cars they build with a 250 mile battery, they can build 20 cars with a 220 mile battery. This difference adds up over time as for 180,000 base models 3 with a larger battery, the same batteries could be split to build 20,000 more cars.

3) YOU DONT NEED THE EXTRA RANGE. I can’t tell you how much I tell this to people looking to buy a Tesla. 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.

4) Cost. This is a car which Tesla needs to make them money. The idea that they would throw in an extra $1000 dollars into the battery is not something productive, especially if it doesn't bring back any customers in return. Heck I would much rather they spend that $1000 on better interior materials than a battery I will never use.

5) Tesla needs to sell the bigger battery as well. If the base range is 250 miles and the top of the line is only 60 more miles, expect a lot less people to splurge on the bigger battery. Now if the difference is actually closer to 80-90 miles, you can expect a higher percentage of buyers to go for the larger battery.

I feel like these ideas are generally from people who have not experienced long range BEVs with supercharging. These differences don’t matter in the real world.

And If the concern is bad press, the Model 3 is already cheaper than the Bolt and there will be an option with far greater range for a higher price on the Model 3. Furthermore, why would Tesla even care about a few misinformed articles at this point with over 400k preorders and lots of demand?

 

[JeffK]

What's hard to understand about this tweet?
Elon Musk on Twitter

For approximately every 18 cars they build with a 250 mile battery, they can build 20 cars with a 220 mile battery.

No, at let's say 3.5 miles per kWh (on the low side) that's a difference of 8.5 kWh of range. At around $100/kWh at the pack level that's more like they could have built 42 cars with less range instead of 41 cars.

Although the AC induction motor might not be as efficient as the motor in the Bolt. The Model 3 will be more aerodynamic. It'll probably be closer to 4mi+ / kWh

3) YOU DONT NEED THE EXTRA RANGE.

Tell that to a family of four that due to an unforeseen side trip might leave you 10-20 miles from the supercharger you planned to charge at. In addition, the higher the capacity now, the higher the capacity after X number of years battery degradation. You might make the same argument that people don't need any more range than what the Nissan Leaf offers... it's simply not true for everyone.

4) Cost. This is a car which Tesla needs to make them money. The idea that they would throw in an extra $1000 dollars into the battery is not something productive, especially if it doesn't bring back any customers in return. Heck I would much rather they spend that $1000 on better interior materials than a battery I will never use.

You forget that this is a marketing thing... if it convinces a few people to buy a lower cost Model 3 over a Bolt then it's worth it for Tesla. The customers might even think I can get all the range of the Bolt and still have money leftover for upgrades/options. This causes Tesla to make money as opposed to a lost sale.

5) Tesla needs to sell the bigger battery as well. If the base range is 250 miles and the top of the line is only 60 more miles, expect a lot less people to splurge on the bigger battery. Now if the difference is actually closer to 80-90 miles, you can expect a higher percentage of buyers to go for the larger battery.

Last time I checked 75 is larger than 55 or 60. People would pay for the extra range if their lifestyle demands the extra range or just for added comfort for those with range anxiety. For the performance version, it may not even be a choice.

 

[acentre]

What's hard to understand about this tweet?
Elon Musk on Twitter

Yes, his response is clear, it will have a longer range than the Bolt, in base configuration, which should be more than adequate for most buyers.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

Yes, his response is clear, it will have a longer range than the Bolt, in base configuration, which should be more than adequate for most buyers.

I don't think that response is clear at all, care to place a small bet on whether base M3 will have more range than Bolt?

 

[alseTrick]

I don't think that response is clear at all, care to place a small bet on whether base M3 will have more range than Bolt?

I don't see where he mentions the BASE 3. He could easily be referring to battery upgraded 3's, which I think he is.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

I don't see where he mentions the BASE 3. He could easily be referring to battery upgraded 3's, which I think he is.

Right, I agree, base M3 will not have more EPA range than Bolt. 75kWh M3 will. Both will have more highway range than Bolt.

 

[BluestarE3]

Yes, his response is clear, it will have a longer range than the Bolt, in base configuration, which should be more than adequate for most buyers.

I'm not so certain this exchange clearly means the base Model 3 will have more range. The question was:

Please tell me the Model 3 offers more range than the Chevy Bolt.

Unlike the Bolt, which has a single battery size, the Model 3 will offer multiple battery sizes. There will be Model 3s available that will exceed the 238 mile range of the Bolt. However, the questioner did not ask specifically about the base model, he just asked if "Model 3 offers more range."

So, the response:

Oh so little faith

could mean, "don't worry, if you want your Model 3 to have more range than the Bolt, you will certainly have that choice because it's offered in multiple battery sizes."

While it would be a nice bonus if the base model got bumped up beyond 238 miles, I'm not counting on it as being a certainty. Both the question and answer are open to interpretation.

 

[Jeff N]

I coughed up the extra $2,500...

I know this isn't the main point being discussed here but this pricing meme is likely inaccurate.

As far as I can tell, the $35,000 Model 3 price does not include the mandatory "delivery fee". We don't yet know what the delivery fee will be for the Model 3 but I recall people saying it is $1,200 for the Model S. The Bolt EV MSRP of $37,495 already includes the delivery fee. So, the base price difference is closer to $1,500 and it is already common to negotiate a discount of at least the amount at higher volume Bolt EV dealers in California.

Whatever minor effective price difference there is between a Bolt EV and a Model 3 is so tenuous and small that it shouldn't usually be worth mentioning as a deciding factor.

 

[JeffK]

I know this isn't the main point being discussed here but this pricing meme is likely inaccurate.

As far as I can tell, the $35,000 Model 3 price does not include the mandatory "delivery fee". We don't yet know what the delivery fee will be for the Model 3 but I recall people saying it is $1,200 for the Model S. The Bolt EV MSRP of $37,495 already includes the delivery fee. So, the base price difference is closer to $1,500 and it is already common to negotiate a discount of at least the amount at higher volume Bolt EV dealers in California.

Whatever minor effective price difference there is between a Bolt EV and a Model 3 is so tenuous and small that it shouldn't usually be worth mentioning as a deciding factor.

Do you know for sure the Bolt destination and delivery charge is included in MSRP? This is not typically the case with new cars and either way must be a line item charge on the bill as required by law.

Ah, answered my own question. It does include that fee in the $37,500 price but doesn't include "dealer fees"

 

[Jeff N]

Ah, answered my own question. It does include that fee in the $37,500 price but doesn't include "dealer fees"

Dealer fees are nominal paperwork-related fees. Mine was $80 for document preparation and $29 to electronically file my DMV registration.

 

[dchuck]

3) YOU DONT NEED THE EXTRA RANGE. I can’t tell you how much I tell this to people looking to buy a Tesla. 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.

This point makes two assumptions. First is that you only use a car for the commute to work each day. I use my car for a whole lot more. Most days your right, my 50 mile commute is more than covered. Some days i can go as high as 150 miles with running errands and taking the kids to events across town, None of which is anywhere near a supercharger.

The second assumption is that the only folks on this forum are from California. For those in the north it is much harder to make rated range when the temperature drops to single digits. Depending on who you talk to a Tesla can loose between 20-30% of its capacity in the winter.

Take the estimated range of the base 3 (215 miles) then take 30% off the top due to winter temperatures which is 150.5 miles. Great now i have about .5 of a mile to spare with kids in the car.

In a perfect world i could afford to spend the 9k to get a bigger battery (Model S from 60 to 75kw). A lot of the people purchasing the Model 3 don't have that kind of cash to burn.

I as well as a good number of others are hoping the base range is closer to the Bolt. Not because it is a competition but because more range is ALWAYS better, even if you never use it.

 

[Canuck]

3) YOU DONT NEED THE EXTRA RANGE. I can’t tell you how much I tell this to people looking to buy a Tesla.... 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

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.

 

[CT200h]

Have to completely agree , I wouldn't take a Bolt over a 3 even if the 3 had 195 miles of EPA range ( it won't)

No way the 3 is just much nicer looking it isn't even close.

Add in supercharger and it's a done deal.

 

[Post]

Tesla has built it's brand upon the perception of being at the forefront of EV technology. It would be an embarrassment for Tesla to offer a similarly priced yet inferior range alternative to the Chevy.

 

[Muhammad]

Maybe I should have argued this a bit differently. The bottom line is that Tesla have any financial incentive to put a larger battery in the base model, esp from the beginning. They already have sold mroe cars than they can make with the promise of 215 miles range, and if the range becomes an issue 2-3 years down the line with more compitition, Tesla should just raise the battery size then rather than now.

And again, range isn't everything. Saying Tesla soemhow isn't at the forefront of EV technology anymore becasue they have a model which has less range than another competing model by 10% is laughable. By that same token, the Tesla Model S 60 has less range than the Bolt, but people still pay more for the car, not because of range, rather due to other reasons.

Finally, you as a consumer may drive over 120 miles on average in a day, but that just means you aren't representative of the general population. I would wager at least 90% of people drive less than 120 miles a day, and for them 215 miles of range is enough. Tesla is targeting the masses and needs to make a car suficient for most, not necessarily sufficient for you individually. Therefore, one has to reason based on a more general scenario, rather than upon individual anomalies.

 

[Reciprocity]

The 215 number was always a worst case scenario from Elon. There is no way in hell that Tesla can allow a bar model 3 to be less EPA rated range then a bolt. It will never happen as long as Elon is breathing Earth air. Maybe Martian air, but not while he is living at 1 AU as an address.

My guess is 55 kwh in the base model with 240 miles of range, which would beat the bolt in every way. Smaller battery, better range, better price, better looks, roomier and more tech. The difference will come from the lower drag coefficient and the use of a lot more aluminum. The pack will a also be much lighter due to the new higher density 2170 based pack.

 

[Canuck]

The difference will come from the lower drag coefficient and the use of a lot more aluminum.

Chris Porritt, Tesla’s vice-president of engineering, told Autocar that Tesla Gen 3 will be “realistically” priced to compete against German sedans of similar size (BMW 3 Series, Audi A4, for example), but in getting to that realistic price point, some sacrifices will be made.

Porritt says that Gen 3 will use “appropriate materials” to keep its price in check, meaning that expensive aluminum may be mostly out the door:

“I expect there will be very little carry-over. We’ve got to be cost-effective. We can’t use aluminum for all the components.”

 

[Reciprocity]

Things change, it's mostly aluminum. More steel then S, but still a lot of aluminum including most of the frame and all the body panels. Something to do with pricing power that Tesla has with aluminum and the experience vs steel.

 

[Canuck]

All the body panels on the Model 3 are aluminum? That's great news.

What is the source of that information?

 

[Big Dog]

The difference is trivial...

I disagree, strongly. IMO, the market/signaling differential is yuuuuuuge.

As long as the battery is sufficient for your daily commute, you don't need the extra 20 miles,

I disagree with this, too. Sure, while 99% of my driving may be daily commute, I still head to the distant airport to pickup the kids when they come home from college. I have no intention of stopping at a SC on the way to, back from, LAX. My minimum battery need is thus, a RT from home to LAX. That is why I had no interest in the Leaf or other e-Machine that would easily cover my daily commute.

These differences don’t matter in the real world.

Sure, but perception is 99% reality. Until electrics become commonplace, folks will be concerned about range, i.e., range anxiety. Elon wants to be the leader in a new market, and that requires education as well as top products.