Search results

Because you were wrong. That was just one of the conjectures. "no brainer"? You brainlessly dismissed that they may stuff fewer cells in a group, thus implying they were using different sized modules.

Charge energy for a cell is greater than discharge energy for the cell. Anywhere from 6% to 10% loss between charge and discharge of a cell. I wonder if the 237 Wh/mi is wall to wheel or battery to wheel? 256 Wh/mi wall to wheel translates to 237 Wh/mi battery storage to wheel.

More speculation: The reason the module can fit up to 25 groups (instead of 24) is that all modules contain 25 groups, but one is a spare, and not in the 96s loop. Assuming there is no way to remove or insert a group of cells, when one cell goes bad, the group is bypassed (or shunted after...

Just as I had speculated -- that the groups (not modules and not the 96s voltage) are smaller on the T3.220. @scaesare So we have 4s24s46p for the T3.310 and 4s24s32p (or 31p) for the T3.220 - probably in a 24s46p module - i.e. 14 vacant cells slots per group. What I don't understand is why...

Note that there are certain overhead elements in a cell. The center folding line which is a dead space at the center of the cell would be the same for an 18650 and a 2170. So this favors the 2170, i.e. more internal volume efficiency. Also there is less steel casing per volume in the 2170...

With pouch cells, it is possible to achieve higher C rates for charge and discharge. I believe this may be due to the superior cooling capacity of pouch cells. The Leaf, Volt, and i3 all use pouch cells. In fact only Tesla and a few odd-lot companies use cylindricals.

How did you arrive at 285 EPA from 72.5 kWh? I doubt that the T3.220 will be a 300 V machine. I am pretty sure they will stick to 400 V, or they will have to change a lot of electronics. Thus if the T3.310 is 8s12s46p, then the T3.220 is 8s12s33p rather than 6s12s46p (which has too much range).

That is pretty plausible. My own estimation based on 51/54 kWh indicated a pack of 3s32s43p, assuming 3 modules, as per Tesla. The 96s is pretty standard. You propose 8 modules for 8s12s46p. As much as I prefer this architecture where modules are low-voltage, I think we should take Tesla...

Yes, if there are 3 modules, then the T3.220 will only have 2 modules. Alternately, it could have 3 modules, but with only 2/3 cells in parallel. I.e. instead of 43P it would be 28P, with 15 of the cells being vacant in the 43P bay. A third possibility is that the 220 has 3 modules but the...

Yes, it is possible that the T3.310 is 3P96S14P. The reason for the 96S is that it both the TS and the Leaf are 96S. It is a good number as it is divisible by 12, and thus lends itself to smaller low-voltage modules in series. Do we really want car mechanics to be dealing with modules that...

Funny. I provide the numbers, and you call it conjecture. You provide no numbers, and you call it the truth.

" Musk said the car is using a smaller number of battery cells (three modules as opposed to the 16 found in the Model S)" from Tesla Model 3: Everything you need to know If true, then I believe the T3.310 architecture is 3M32S43P or possibly 3M96S14P. The latter architecture implies that the...

Problem with the chart that shows price per mile of range is that it is a linear model, while we value range not linearly but logarithmically. The first mile has a lot more value than mile 101. And mile 101 has a lot more value than mile 201. In other words, an EV with range 100 miles is worth a...

Assuming the two battery sizes for the T3 are 51 kWh and 73 kWh (or 54 and 77 after including unused buffers), then the difference of 23 kWh will be made of 96x43x23/77 = 1,233 cells. Also assume that all the electronics and motor are identical - the charger being the exception. Based on the...

I suspect the newer chemistry also increases the C factor above the current 3C, and reduces the internal impedance. Such as is with the 5C Samsung 18650.

If the T3.220 is being supplied with 18650 cells fit in a 2170 can, or with early-run 'low-capacity' 2170s, then it is at its limit of 51 kWh (or 54 with buffering). Overtime, as the 2170 improves, the T3.220 range will increase to let's say 265, but will be held back by software at 220, with a...

You could probably live with T3 220 on the coldest days. You could also charge 110V L1 at work.

Not really. The T3 310 is based on the larger 2170 batteries. While the TS is based on the 18650. The modules are radically different and one does not fit the other. Also, there is no reason to believe that the T3 has enough room for 85 kWh. More likely, it is just for 75 kWh (actually 78)...

If the 18650 is fit into a 2170 can, then the form factor is the same. Panasonic could even fit the sandwich into a 2170. Can be done quite well.

Yes of course. But it also is pulling the throttle back due to huge amounts of heat generated in the batteries, which cannot be cooled fast enough - up to 78 W per cell. The software is throttling it back. Of course the motor and inverter heats up as well, and that is another reason to pull...

Yes, I suspect the reason the 100L seems to fall back towards the end of the race is because of software throttling as the cells have reached their thermal limit. This issue will probably go away when we get a 150L, where 3.9C will have the same effect as 5.8C (minus the extra battery weight)...

Modules have a fixed voltage, and I doubt that Tesla would make two different modules, one for the SR and one for the LR. Thus if they don't have the same number of modules, the voltages will be different which impacts all the electronics and motors, software, etc. I believe Tesla like with...

Internal cell resistance is nominally 100 mOhm. So at 4.3C, each cell generates a whopping 21 W of heat. Now imagine a few of the 8,000 cells are at 200 mOhm due to manufacturing variances. So now you have a cell generating 42 W of thermal energy. In no time will the thing reach 100 to 150...

At the official rate of 237 Wh/mi (is this for the T3?) for the base model 3 I get a battery pack of 96x43 cells, each cell 3.4 Ah (i.e. a Panasonic 18650 or a 'low-capacity' 2170). This gives a storage capacity of 51 kWh, and a capacity of 54 kWh when 6% top and bottom buffers are included...

Is this 237 Wh/mi official figure for the model S? Then it should be maybe 210 Wh/mi for the T3?

I say apple, and you hear orange. The 2C figure is for the consumer version of the Panasonic NCR 'B' battery. And as I have said above, Tesla says they get a custom "automotive" version of the battery, which obviously means higher power. The reason the Tesla holds up just fine on the average...

The Bolt is a joke It is not meant for mass production and it is just to steal the show. Maybe you need to check some tech sheets, despite your moniker. The Volt uses a LiPoly (lithium-ion polymer) battery. LiPoly have very high discharge rates. But Tesla does not use LiPoly. Take a look...

Standard non-poly Li-ion cells are to be discharged at 2C, at the maximum. I know that Tesla has said they are discharging their Panasonic batteries at 3C, which provides 50% more power to the motor. I don't think Panasonic approves that, but then there is no recourse to Panasonic. The new...

No leather option?

No leather option?

Hmmm ... no leather option?

Coming from a Leaf background upgrading to the T3, I would be more than happy with 36 kWh! Not spoiled at all, here.

True. And if the module is being built for the 2170 and fitted with 18650s for the standard range model, then it would still be possible to provide an intermediate range by mixing 2170 and 18650s in the same module.

Not really. If the T3 has 4000 cells (for a capacity of 50 kWh), then it can generate only 100 kW, which is not a lot. The Leaf is at 80 kW, and the i3 at 120 kW. Tesla may run the cells at a higher discharge rate (at the risk of cell damage) and you may get up to 150 kW and not more. 150 kW...

Or being the lighter car, the 215 car is 50 kWh -- which is the perfect capacity for a 2nd car.

The gap between 215 and 310 is just about right. I am more than happy with 215, while others need a 310. The range points are about right.

This may be an issue with the 215 mi T3. There may not be enough cells to generate the power needed for a 4 sec 0-60. And then the motor needs also to be bigger and the power connection fatter. It is more than just the inverter.

My wild guess - the T3 standard range 215 miles, and the T3 long range 310 miles. The LR is 44% higher in range. Does the factor 1.44 ring a bell? It is about what a 2170 is to a 18650 (including the chemistry improvements). So that would mean the T3SR has the same number of 18650 cells as the...

My wild guess - the T3 standard range 215 miles, and the T3 long range 310 miles. The LR is 44% higher in range. Does the factor 1.44 ring a bell? It is about what a 2170 is to a 18650 (including the chemistry improvements). So that would mean the T3SR has the same number of 18650 cells as the...