Future Tesla Batteries

[dhanson865]

I'm pretty sure they mean 20% volume not 20% smaller in all dimensions. If you shrink the wheelbase of the Model S by 20%, you get down to the wheelbase of some of the smaller cars on the road. On the other hand Elon Musk has also commented the Model 3 will be about the same size as the BMW 3 Series, which is about 20% smaller in volume than the Model S. Tesla is aiming for the middle of the market for the Model 3 and that's the platform most midisize and compact sedans are built on.

Midsize includes cars like the Chevy Malibu, Ford Fusion, and I believe the BMW 5 Series. Compact sedans include the BMW 3 Series and the Subaru Impreza. Cars smaller than the compact sedans start getting into specialty cars and cars aimed at first time car buyers. There are already BEVs in that size niche and I don't think Tesla wants to compete with those cars.

Also consider that the Tesla drivetrain/battery pack allows for a smaller car to have more usable space vs a Hybrid like the Prius or a Pure gasser like the other cars you mentioned.

Possible to be smaller on the outside than a Midsize by a fraction and still have more room inside.

 

[electracity]

.....
So the battery could be considerably smaller than "20%" of a full size battery.

But the M3 is apparently steel, and probably not a design that minimizes weight of the structure (Volt).

 

[Krugerrand]

But the M3 is apparently steel...

Source? I've not read anything from Tesla that states that. They've certainly said that using (more) steel than they did for the Model S/X was something they were considering.

 

[JRP3]

In the recent Baron's talk Elon said 20% smaller car and 20% smaller battery. As I've pointed out before, range in highway driving, when range actually matters, is impacted more by aerodynamics than weight. Electracity keeps obsessing over weight in spite of that fact, for some reason....

 

[electracity]

In the recent Baron's talk Elon said 20% smaller car and 20% smaller battery. As I've pointed out before, range in highway driving, when range actually matters, is impacted more by aerodynamics than weight. Electracity keeps obsessing over weight in spite of that fact, for some reason....

Quick, contact Tesla! All that money they are wasting building out of aluminum. And BMW with their billions into carbon fiber R&D, what a shame.......

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

quick, contact tesla! All that money they are wasting building out of aluminum. And bmw with their billions into carbon fiber r&d, what a shame.......

An ICEV is not the same as a BEV. 8-|

 

[roblab]

I'm pretty sure they mean 20% volume not 20% smaller in all dimensions. If you shrink the wheelbase of the Model S by 20%, you get down to the wheelbase of some of the smaller cars on the road. On the other hand Elon Musk has also commented the Model 3 will be about the same size as the BMW 3 Series, which is about 20% smaller in volume than the Model S. Tesla is aiming for the middle of the market for the Model 3 and that's the platform most midisize and compact sedans are built on.

Midsize includes cars like the Chevy Malibu, Ford Fusion, and I believe the BMW 5 Series. Compact sedans include the BMW 3 Series and the Subaru Impreza. Cars smaller than the compact sedans start getting into specialty cars and cars aimed at first time car buyers. There are already BEVs in that size niche and I don't think Tesla wants to compete with those cars.

You could be right -- in fact, I hope you are. But I am not "pretty sure" because there is nothing that says anything yet. It's all conjecture except the words, "20% smaller". As with advertising, it means nothing.

There are lots of cars out there that are 20% smaller by dimension. They weigh about half the Model S. There are a lot of cars out there that weigh 20% less They are nearly the same size.

In Europe, they are wanting a car that is 20% dimensionally smaller, from what I read. But who knows anything? I can see a car that weighs half of the Model S actually costing half the price. A car that weighs 4000 lb (20%) not so much.

I think those that want a big car for half price are dreaming. But, go ahead. That's what these forums are for. No one needs to make any sense.

 

[JRP3]

Quick, contact Tesla! All that money they are wasting building out of aluminum. And BMW with their billions into carbon fiber R&D, what a shame.......

Of course since you have no counter argument you need to imply something ridiculous, which I in no way claimed. Certainly weight is important, not only for range, but acceleration and handling. Regardless, my statement was accurate because, physics.

 

[wdolson]

You could be right -- in fact, I hope you are. But I am not "pretty sure" because there is nothing that says anything yet. It's all conjecture except the words, "20% smaller". As with advertising, it means nothing.

There are lots of cars out there that are 20% smaller by dimension. They weigh about half the Model S. There are a lot of cars out there that weigh 20% less They are nearly the same size.

In Europe, they are wanting a car that is 20% dimensionally smaller, from what I read. But who knows anything? I can see a car that weighs half of the Model S actually costing half the price. A car that weighs 4000 lb (20%) not so much.

I think those that want a big car for half price are dreaming. But, go ahead. That's what these forums are for. No one needs to make any sense.

The Model S 2.0 might be half the price, but it will probably be at least 10 years in the future. The Model 3 is going to definitely be a smaller car. The most popular cars today are smaller, around the size of a BMW 3 Series or Subaru Impreza (compact sedan class) or the size of a Camry, Chevy Malubu, BMW 7 Series (midsize sedan). The non-luxury large sedan ("family" sedan) market is small. The Chevy Impala is the best seller in this market only sells about 100,000 cars a year. Ford introduced a new full sized Taurus in China for 2016, but it's not being sold in the US. They plan to sell the current platform Taurus in the US for another year and then kill off the Taurus. The platform will be used in the US for police cars and the new Lincoln Continental being released for 2017. The Taurus just doesn't sell enough cars to make it worth the trouble anymore. The plant also makes Explorers and they will use the line formerly used for Tauruses to build more Explorers.

Mainstream consumers now want smaller cars. The US was the last holdout as gasoline prices were so low and the full sized cars were sold as the cars people should aspire too. They were also the best built American cars, the smaller ones having a lot more problems. Americans started to be drawn to smaller cars in the 70s, but they got over big cars by the 1990s. Those who still like big vehicles moved on to trucks or SUVs. That's why a number of forecasters have predicted the Model X will sell better than the Model S, though the Model S has a fair number of features seen on SUVs like optional third row seats and huge cargo area. The Model S looks like a sedan on the outside, but it's more of a hatchback or wagon inside.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Food for thought. In 2017 a CPO 2014 Model S will probably cost the same as a mid price Model 3 sedan. Someone on here theorized the Model S could conceivably be driven 1 million miles, without failing, or experiencing too many problems.

What's the current record for most miles driven on a Model S? Is there a thread about that?

 

[electracity]

I think the M3 could be as small as a subcompact, with the interior room of a compact.

 

[ecarfan]

I think the M3 could be as small as a subcompact, with the interior room of a compact.

I don't think it will be that small because even a 50kWh battery pack is going to need a certain amount of space between the axels.
I think the Model 3 external dimensions will be very close to the BMW 3 series, and perhaps equal to the 4 series. Still quite a bit smaller than the Model S.

 

[electracity]

I don't think it will be that small because even a 50kWh battery pack is going to need a certain amount of space between the axels.
I think the Model 3 external dimensions will be very close to the BMW 3 series, and perhaps equal to the 4 series. Still quite a bit smaller than the Model S.

80% of the MS length puts it well into subcompact territory. I hope it isn't that small.

 

[wdolson]

80% of the MS length puts it well into subcompact territory. I hope it isn't that small.

Any dimensional reduction gets cubed when you're talking about volume. A 20% reduction in each dimension makes the car 50% the volume of the Model S which is a dinky car. However, Elon has said the Model 3 will be about the same size as the BMW 3 Series, which is almost exactly 20% less volume.

Tesla's strategy is to disrupt from the top down and compete with ICE cars, not kill off other BEVs. Most of the BEVs out there are in the sub-compact range, fairly small cars. Tesla wants to take aim at the heart of the ICE market which is the compact sedan and midsize sedan market. The BMW 3 Series is right in that compact sedan size range. The plan may be to stretch the Model 3 chassis a bit to make a midsize car down the road. Stretching an existing chassis to cover another niche in the market is not unusual in the car business and it's cheaper than starting over. It's easier to stretch an existing chassis than shrink one, so starting with the smaller car first makes sense.

With everything else on Tesla's agenda, a stretched Model 3 is probably just a concept on the back burner at the moment.

 

[chickensevil]

80% of the MS length puts it well into subcompact territory. I hope it isn't that small.

I mean couldn't they drop the number of cells in each module to make them skinnier? Take 10% of the cells out of each module on the ends and then it would be 20% skinnier, you could then trim up the tail end of the car a little bit and now you have a smaller car in width and length (but not as much on the length). I mean the MS is already criticized for being way too wide of a car. Someone with better knowledge of how the modules are put together would have to chime in here if that is even feasible, since I think each module is currently designed to put out the 480V and then you place them together in parallel such that you up the amerage, right? So I assume if you dump out cells from the pack that you would lower the voltage, would that be an issue? Alternatively they could also turn the modules vertical instead of horizontal and do like three/four modules across and also reduce the size that way.

There are more ways than 1 to skin this cat, I think the point is, they don't have to just pull from the front and back to reduce the size. 20% size reduction would be by volume, not by physical contraints such as length and width. Because I am willing to bet that they keep a similar height on the frame as well, or are you suggesting that they drop the height down to 45.2 as well? because that would be a bit silly for a sedan, no? 55" is a pretty common car height (give or take a few) almost a foot shorter would put that thing into sports car / low riding territory. Note the roadster for comparison was 44.35".

 

[wdolson]

I mean couldn't they drop the number of cells in each module to make them skinnier? Take 10% of the cells out of each module on the ends and then it would be 20% skinnier, you could then trim up the tail end of the car a little bit and now you have a smaller car in width and length (but not as much on the length). I mean the MS is already criticized for being way too wide of a car. Someone with better knowledge of how the modules are put together would have to chime in here if that is even feasible, since I think each module is currently designed to put out the 480V and then you place them together in parallel such that you up the amerage, right? So I assume if you dump out cells from the pack that you would lower the voltage, would that be an issue? Alternatively they could also turn the modules vertical instead of horizontal and do like three/four modules across and also reduce the size that way.

There are more ways than 1 to skin this cat, I think the point is, they don't have to just pull from the front and back to reduce the size. 20% size reduction would be by volume, not by physical contraints such as length and width. Because I am willing to bet that they keep a similar height on the frame as well, or are you suggesting that they drop the height down to 45.2 as well? because that would be a bit silly for a sedan, no? 55" is a pretty common car height (give or take a few) almost a foot shorter would put that thing into sports car / low riding territory. Note the roadster for comparison was 44.35".

The modules on the Model 3 may be completely different geometry. One speculation I saw was the battery pack wouldn't be flat, but have no batteries under people's feet with more batteries under the seats and down the centerline. In any case, no dimension is going to be reduced 20%. If the reduction is in each dimension, it would mean a 7-8%* reduction in each dimension, which makes the height about 51 inches. If there are no batteries under the feet of the people in the car, they can probably make that height without sacrificing interior height.

* to reduce volume 20% by shrinking each dimension equally, that would be a 7.2% reduction of each dimension.

 

[pmadflyer]

The modules on the Model 3 may be completely different geometry. One speculation I saw was the battery pack wouldn't be flat, but have no batteries under people's feet with more batteries under the seats and down the centerline. In any case, no dimension is going to be reduced 20%. If the reduction is in each dimension, it would mean a 7-8%* reduction in each dimension, which makes the height about 51 inches. If there are no batteries under the feet of the people in the car, they can probably make that height without sacrificing interior height.

* to reduce volume 20% by shrinking each dimension equally, that would be a 7.2% reduction of each dimension.

I haven't heard that. Wouldn't that make pack assembly more difficult at the gigafactory, compared to a flat layout? I could see Tesla maintaining some sort of whole width bottom mounted battery pack to maintain side impact protection. I imagine the goal is another bewitched with 5 stars on every category.

 

[Yggdrasill]

The modules on the Model 3 may be completely different geometry. One speculation I saw was the battery pack wouldn't be flat, but have no batteries under people's feet with more batteries under the seats and down the centerline. In any case, no dimension is going to be reduced 20%. If the reduction is in each dimension, it would mean a 7-8%* reduction in each dimension, which makes the height about 51 inches. If there are no batteries under the feet of the people in the car, they can probably make that height without sacrificing interior height.

I don't think the Model 3 will be significantly lower. I think it's more likely the Model 3 will be shorter, something that might necessitate sitting more upright. That would require more height.

Nissan Leaf height: 61"
Model S height: 56.5"

In my view, the most likely scenario is that the Model 3 will have the same height, but it might lose 10% width and 10% length.

 

[electracity]

I don't think the Model 3 will be significantly lower. I think it's more likely the Model 3 will be shorter, something that might necessitate sitting more upright. That would require more height.

Nissan Leaf height: 61"
Model S height: 56.5"

In my view, the most likely scenario is that the Model 3 will have the same height, but it might lose 10% width and 10% length.

The model S has just enough headroom for Musk. Presumably the M3 will be similar. So I think you logic is good. I think the batteries will be in the floor, as the skateboard needs to work for the Model Y SUV. 60kwh in the floor in a car the is 10% less in horizontal dimensions should work.

 

[MassModel3]

I haven't heard that. Wouldn't that make pack assembly more difficult at the gigafactory, compared to a flat layout? I could see Tesla maintaining some sort of whole width bottom mounted battery pack to maintain side impact protection. I imagine the goal is another bewitched with 5 stars on every category.

Technically, the Model S battery pack isn't completely flat either. There is one battery module that is one level higher than the rest of the pack (I think only the 85's/90's have cells in this module, but I'm not positive on that).

But if the pack were not at least relatively flat, storage of multiple packs (either for transport or awaiting final vehicle installation) would require more space and thereby more cost to store and transport. Plus, if the battery swap stations ever do roll out for real, that process could be complicated by odd-shaped packs, not to mention again the need for underground pack storage.

It's entirely possible the rear seat foot area might be in a module-free section of the battery pack, but I don't think there will be odd stacking like down the center or under the seats. With the Model S, under the front seats is vents and nothing else, and under the rear seats are the chargers. In the interest of storage space in the Model 3, I expect a similar layout to the Model S.