Will the model 3 have a hybrid battery?

Oil4AsphaultOnly said:

I didn't see this discussed before, so throwing it out there. A while back, it was released that Tesla had patented a battery-battery hybrid (from Metal-Air to Li-Ion) power train. Nothing was ever produced from that tech.

Considering that the model 3 doesn't "need" performance, and the Li-Ion battery might cost more per kwh than Metai-Air, would it make sense for the model3 to have a 20kwh Li-Ion battery paired with a 40kwh Al-Air? Giving it 200+ mile range, without supercar performance or cost. Unlike PHEV's, a battery hybrid wouldn't have as much additional weight to haul. Plus, the Al-Air battery can probably be made removable for additional weight savings during commuting days.

Or would this tech make more sense for larger vehicles that would most benefit from the extra capacity with minimal additional weight? Like a model S v2?

Click to expand...

The Gigafactory will bring the cost down with regards to Li-Ion. The time frame's too short for them to develop completely new battery technology for the 3. The development of a completely new battery technology and commercialising it would cost too much, raising the price of the Model 3, not lowering it.

Oil4AsphaultOnly said:

Considering that the model 3 doesn't "need" performance

Click to expand...

I disagree with that point. I think the performance of M3 should be similar to those of S and X for it to be appealing..

Oil4AsphaultOnly said:

I didn't see this discussed before, so throwing it out there. A while back, it was released that Tesla had patented a battery-battery hybrid (from Metal-Air to Li-Ion) power train. Nothing was ever produced from that tech.

Considering that the model 3 doesn't "need" performance, and the Li-Ion battery might cost more per kwh than Metai-Air, would it make sense for the model3 to have a 20kwh Li-Ion battery paired with a 40kwh Al-Air? Giving it 200+ mile range, without supercar performance or cost. Unlike PHEV's, a battery hybrid wouldn't have as much additional weight to haul. Plus, the Al-Air battery can probably be made removable for additional weight savings during commuting days.

Or would this tech make more sense for larger vehicles that would most benefit from the extra capacity with minimal additional weight? Like a model S v2?

Click to expand...

No. The price targets on lithium ion are low enough to allow a $35k car, and metal air also needs to improve. But a hybrid with metal-air could be something for 4th generation vehicles with lower pricing.

The instantaneous answer that 99.44% of us would have used to respond to your thread title would be No!

Your text, though, shows you are using the term "hybrid" in a novel way. One that is guaranteed to obfuscate more than clarify, but still novel, and understandable (if not forgivable...).

Bearing on your thought -if the electronics associated in drawing from the different battery types is cost-effective, and if the Metal-Air battery can deliver the desired range in a weight-effective and cost-effective manner, then it certainly seems a reasonable approach to consider.

I do not put much weight to your thought of making that second battery pack removable, however. Tesla has shown superb reasons for placing packs down low - safety, performance and roominess - and this location means nasty awkwardness for an at-home detachment process, as well as losing the safety (structural integrity plus associated low center-of-gravity) features of keeping the pack there.

By the way: unlike some of the earlier responders, I most definitely am not of the school that the Model 3 will be or should be a performance-oriented machine.

jkk_ said:

I disagree with that point. I think the performance of M3 should be similar to those of S and X for it to be appealing..

Click to expand...

I disagree strongly with you. There are significant sales of vehicles at the low end of the luxury market (including popular low-end BMW 3-series diesels: think globally) where performance is just OK. Add in markets where fuel taxation improves electric value, plus buyers who'd pay a premium for the electric experience and I think you'll find that a base model with, say 0-60 in 7s would sell in large numbers.

An interesting hybrid approach is to incorporate a system similar to a Formula 1 Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS). Tesla favors battery packs with high specific energy obviously, so the cells are optimized for energy storage rather than high charge/discharge performance. As a result, as the battery pack drops in size, the power output it can reasonably handle with minimal damage also drops. Therefore, a performance version of the Model 3 could use a supercapacitor or ultracapacitor to store energy during regenerative braking and dump it particularly fast for acceleration. Mr. Musk had discussed this approach in earlier interviews, but Tesla engineers convinced him that it wasn't necessary as the traction battery's output was enough. And certainly at 85 kWh, it is enough for the performance that we see today. But at 50-60 kWh, it isn't. Assuming some of the performance limitations on the Model S on the track is due to traction battery heating and the impulse power limitations, such a system could reduce the impact on the traction battery and make the vehicle far more suited for track use.

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said:

I disagree strongly with you. There are significant sales of vehicles at the low end of the luxury market (including popular low-end BMW 3-series diesels: think globally) where performance is just OK. Add in markets where fuel taxation improves electric value, plus buyers who'd pay a premium for the electric experience and I think you'll find that a base model with, say 0-60 in 7s would sell in large numbers.

Click to expand...

Sure, I can agree with 0-60 in 7s for the base model to be sufficient. I have just seen posts speculating with closer to 9s or higher, which I believe to be not good enough.

techmaven said:

An interesting hybrid approach is to incorporate a system similar to a Formula 1 Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS). Tesla favors battery packs with high specific energy obviously, so the cells are optimized for energy storage rather than high charge/discharge performance. As a result, as the battery pack drops in size, the power output it can reasonably handle with minimal damage also drops. Therefore, a performance version of the Model 3 could use a supercapacitor or ultracapacitor to store energy during regenerative braking and dump it particularly fast for acceleration. Mr. Musk had discussed this approach in earlier interviews, but Tesla engineers convinced him that it wasn't necessary as the traction battery's output was enough. And certainly at 85 kWh, it is enough for the performance that we see today. But at 50-60 kWh, it isn't. Assuming some of the performance limitations on the Model S on the track is due to traction battery heating and the impulse power limitations, such a system could reduce the impact on the traction battery and make the vehicle far more suited for track use.

Click to expand...

The S60's performance wasn't stunning, but it was more than adequate.
Tesla has a 90kWh battery they can fit in the S.
Model 3 will be smaller.

No reason for a KERS system, except as an option. And why not introduce it in the S instead?

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said:

I disagree strongly with you. There are significant sales of vehicles at the low end of the luxury market (including popular low-end BMW 3-series diesels: think globally) where performance is just OK.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. But Elon has been very clear many times that a Tesla will not be just an "okay" car, it will be a superior car compared to others in its class/size. Since it is relatively easy to make a high performance EV, I do not believe that Tesla will ever make an "okay" performing car compared to others in its class. I bet that the base Model 3 will be much quicker than a base BMW 3-Series car, and the Model 3 will also be available in a "P" version that will be crazy quick, quicker than a BMW M3.

ecarfan said:

...Since it is relatively easy to make a high performance EV, I do not believe that Tesla will ever make an "okay" performing car compared to others in its class. I bet that the base Model 3 will be much quicker than a base BMW 3-Series car, and the Model 3 will also be available in a "P" version that will be crazy quick, quicker than a BMW M3.

Click to expand...

It may be more appropriate to discuss this in the "What would you like to see in the Model 3" thread - I think something like that exists - but for now:

I perceive statements - and desiderata - like this one to be absolutely analogous to the "Compliance Car" criticism that effectively all ICE manufacturers receive. To wit:

ICE
* See? We can meet California's requirements by offering these nasty, ugly, poor-performing pieces of trash that no one's going to want to buy. Ta da! We've met that bar. Phew!

Model 3-as-a-performance-car
*See? We can meet the promised $35,000 target with this base base basic thing that has no features. If you want a car that actually can perform, that actually has enhancements that, in reality, everyone is going to choose....well then, it's going to sell for $39K..$42K..$50K...$60K.

Result? Effectively no one pays $35K for the vehicle. The SS/DD curve is such that TM may obtain a better ROI and fatter cash flow than it otherwise would have (Y-X sales at $35,000+Z versus Y sales at $35,000). At the same time, the long-promised Final Goal of Elon Musk is blown to hell in a gold-plated handbasket. That is, adoption of EVs by the mass of the car-buying public as a naturally superior product does not occur. And I sell my entire position in TSLA.

Oil4AsphaultOnly said:

I didn't see this discussed before, so throwing it out there. A while back, it was released that Tesla had patented a battery-battery hybrid (from Metal-Air to Li-Ion) power train. Nothing was ever produced from that tech.

Considering that the model 3 doesn't "need" performance, and the Li-Ion battery might cost more per kwh than Metai-Air, would it make sense for the model3 to have a 20kwh Li-Ion battery paired with a 40kwh Al-Air? Giving it 200+ mile range, without supercar performance or cost. Unlike PHEV's, a battery hybrid wouldn't have as much additional weight to haul. Plus, the Al-Air battery can probably be made removable for additional weight savings during commuting days.

Or would this tech make more sense for larger vehicles that would most benefit from the extra capacity with minimal additional weight? Like a model S v2?

Click to expand...

I say highly unlikely, since Tesla simply does not have the time to wait for Metal-air tech to become viable (there are still serious cycle life issues and also the need to provide a oxygen supply to the battery). Al-Air also is out of the picture as it is not rechargeable (the patent Tesla had is for a rechargeable metal-air battery).

Maybe possible for Model S gen 2 depending on how metal-air develops by the time Tesla releases such a model.

Interesting thread -- thinking about my Prius, the hybrid battery is a different chemistry than for EVs. It has a lot of power, but not a lot of energy. It might be an interesting approach to put such a battery into the Model 3 for storing regenerated energy to take stress off the main traction battery. Of course, there would be a weight and space penalty, so that would be a consideration that could torpedo such an idea...

If it was possible for Tesla to trade some power for range through battery tech, I think that would be a good thing for the base model. I'm not sure there is a battery tech that will do that right now though.

AudubonB said:

Model 3-as-a-performance-car
*See? We can meet the promised $35,000 target with this base base basic thing that has no features. If you want a car that actually can perform, that actually has enhancements that, in reality, everyone is going to choose....well then, it's going to sell for $39K..$42K..$50K...$60K.

Result? Effectively no one pays $35K for the vehicle. The SS/DD curve is such that TM may obtain a better ROI and fatter cash flow than it otherwise would have (Y-X sales at $35,000+Z versus Y sales at $35,000). At the same time, the long-promised Final Goal of Elon Musk is blown to hell in a gold-plated handbasket. That is, adoption of EVs by the mass of the car-buying public as a naturally superior product does not occur. And I sell my entire position in TSLA.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic. Are you arguing against a higher-priced P version on the grounds it raises average selling price? So it's better to sell 10,000 (or even 20,000) base Model 3's than 10,000 base cars and 50,000 P's?

IMHO, the end game is demonstrating the superiority of EV's at all price/performance levels. When competing with the BMW 3 series, it's a much more compelling story if you can do better than all models in the series (from the slowest oil-burner up through the M3).

If no performance version is offered, I'm out. I'm not interested in Leaf performance with a Tesla badge, regardless of range.

I hope so.

tga said:

I don't understand this logic. Are you arguing against a higher-priced P version on the grounds it raises average selling price? So it's better to sell 10,000 (or even 20,000) base Model 3's than 10,000 base cars and 50,000 P's?

IMHO, the end game is demonstrating the superiority of EV's at all price/performance levels. When competing with the BMW 3 series, it's a much more compelling story if you can do better than all models in the series (from the slowest oil-burner up through the M3).

If no performance version is offered, I'm out. I'm not interested in Leaf performance with a Tesla badge, regardless of range.

Click to expand...

As I read it, he just wants to see Tesla release a sincere base model, rather than an option-restricted stripper model.

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said:

As I read it, he just wants to see Tesla release a sincere base model, rather than an option-restricted stripper model.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I've been a long term gen 3 / Model 3 waiter and I always expected the $35k base model to be a stripper model (much like with Model S base). The ASP (average selling price) of the Model 3 was always going to be significantly higher (~$50k like the BMW 3 series or even higher). Did anyone expect otherwise?

The only difference is unlike the 40kWh Model S, I expect the base $35k Model 3 to be a long term model, not something Tesla just releases shortly to meet promises and then cancels shortly afterwards.

However, in context, I think AudubonB is saying even the base model will perform better than an equivalent base model 3 series. Any less should not be expected. The incremental cost of offering better performance is simply much lower than an ICE, so it does not make sense to offer a low performance model.

stopcrazypp said:

I always expected the $35k base model to be a stripper model (much like with Model S base)

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand. The base Model S is absolutely loaded with standard features. Honestly, there were no options that I felt I had to have. How is it a "stripper?"

Let me explain it another way. Not so that you can agree with me, but so that you can understand my beliefs and logic.

As background, for a number of months now there have been a significant number of posts - and definitely some feeding on others' opinions in a kind of Escalation Of Desires phenomenon - that have taken the Model 3 in these posters' minds to the point that it is a barely-miniaturized Model S that is a wünderkind of automobiliana, complete with "...And I'll happily pay $70,000 for that". To stretch for the purpose of making my point, a small car that seats seven, goes 0-60 in 3.3, has a 360-mile range....you get the point. Such views occur in the immediately prior posts.

All right, so you can counter my "plain jane but adequate" $35K car with "...but with options we can make that a really nifty car that provides me with what I want..." and with a loftier price tag. Cool, right? Tesla gets the chance for a higher profit margin and a better ROE? Everyone's happy?

Well, no. Here's why:

Tesla can produce only X cars. That may be 1,000/week or 100,000/yr or 500,000 annually out of Fremont. But that's it. No more. Not until another multi-billion dollar vehicular plant can be erected, and another Gigafactory, too.

What this means is that every single NiftyKeen-O $50 or $60 or $70K Model 3 means one fewer $35,000 vehicle (realistically from a manufacturing standpoint, probably more like 1.1-1.3 fewer). And it is that $35K price point (more reasonably, price cloud: let's say $32-37K) that needs be maintained in order to populate the markets of NoAm, Europe, Australia, Japan and even China with at least a half-million EVs each year so that the Real Message finally is spread loud and clear.

I have zero doubt that the mean, mode, and median automobile purchasing power of the data set that is this forum membership is one that sees a $60 or $70K car as far more approachable than does the regular car-buying public. My absolute belief is that to the extent that is the case is the extent to which the Model 3 is not meant for you. The truth is, $35,000 is still a very large amount for many in the nations I cited above to shell out for an automobile.

In summary, then, for me Tesla need not only to stay the course and produce that very compelling $35K model, but just as importantly not to deviate from that with bells and whistles that bring the ASP up to levels that crowd off the production line the kind of car Tesla needs to distribute in order to fulfill the Secret Master Plan.