andrerodpt
Member
Can't they put it on the Powerwalls? Or Powerwall uses a different kind of battery?
Or use those on the prototypes for the semi. Considering some misguided calculations, it would only take 4 or 5 of those to clear stock.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?
- Thread starter ModelNforNerd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
Can't they put it on the Powerwalls? Or Powerwall uses a different kind of battery?
Or use those on the prototypes for the semi. Considering some misguided calculations, it would only take 4 or 5 of those to clear stock.
andrerodpt
Member
But there wasn't any time overlap for those two models. The Model S didn't cannibalize any Roadster sells. And this time, I think Tesla is concerned about that. They don't want to stop selling the top of the line MS (remember the high profit it carries).
I previously thought they would put the cells in the Powerwall/Powerpack, but it does seem as if the Gigafactory is being outfitted for using 21-70s in these products.Can't they put it on the Powerwalls? Or Powerwall uses a different kind of battery?
Or use those on the prototypes for the semi. Considering some misguided calculations, it would only take 4 or 5 of those to clear stock.
Thinking about it, it does make sense. Tesla today owns production equipment for making around 100k 18650-based Model S/X packs per year. It makes much more sense to continue using this equipment than to buy new equipment to make large amounts of 18650-based Powerwalls/Powerpacks, only to switch to 21-70s a few months later.
Just to throw random numbers out there:
You "should" (of course you can do a full charge but it seems to be frowned upon) charge only to 80% at a Supercharger so 310*0,8 = 248 miles.
Now let's throw some bad weather your way and say you can get 70% of rated range, 248*0,7 = 173,6miles or ~279km which is easily a distance one needs to travel without having the option of being able to charge in between. Sure, I'll admit that charger situation is improving over time.
And yes, a 300 miles range would be enough for me. But I don't assume that I know what other people need.
Here's a nice blog post about the model S and winter:
Winter's effect on range for the Model S - Tesla Living
Talking about hitting the price target is irrelevant in this context as we are talking about battery upgrades not the basic battery.
No, it's not irrelevant. Designing the car to be able to fit a larger battery pack means more volume is set aside for this purpose. It will also weigh more in the maxed out configuration, so you need better brakes and suspension, unless selecting the biggest battery pack also requires various modifications. Could be that you need different tires with a higher load rating. Maybe you also need a bigger onboard charger as standard, or at least the option to equip one, and the cable harness might needs to be designed for higher power (and longer duration) supercharging. Maybe also you need more power to accelerate this heavier car, affecting the drive units design and cable harness. All these modifications also add additional weight, leading to further modifications.
All this adds up. Adding support for a 100 kWh pack could easily increase the price of the base version by 500-1000 USD.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Why in the world would Tesla create a "lesser" car on purpose?
Elon has already stated that the M3 will have better technology and a more efficient battery package.
Again, What reason could Tesla give their investors to justify making a "lesser" car - on purpose?
Garlan Garner
Banned
The M3 "Will" contain the newest technology available which includes the 2170's. Elon has already made that statement.
andrerodpt
Member
Will have better technology and more efficient battery package compared with today's cars.
And every single brand brand in the market do it. Unless you're a "one-model" brand.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I believe increasing the price of any of their vehicles by $500 would be just fine.
Tesla isn't competing with Tesla. Tesla is competing with the market. The MS isn't competing with the M3 or MX. Tesla is competing against Chevy and Nissan. If Tesla can utilize a 100kWh battery pack...they should.
Tesla cars sell better than other brands for 2 reasons. 1. Longest range 2. Faster.
A 80 kWh Model 3 will still be the longest range car of it's size by a wide margin. The Bolt has a 200-ish mile range and the 80 kWh Model 3 would have around 310 miles. Over time, improvements in chemistry will push range up towards 400 miles.
Exactly. The only realistic way to utilize the 18650-cells is in the Model S/X. And they're perfectly fine to use on the lower range versions.
andrerodpt
Member
But they are. Right now they are. When take into consideration that some estimate that the 60kWh versions accounts for 50% of total sales, and the narrow profit margin Tesla gets from it compared with higher kWh versions, then you can't say that Tesla isn't competing with Tesla. For example: that translates directly in $TSLA stock price.
We can argue that the buyer for the 60kWh MS is not the same as the 90kWh, and with those lower capacity models they expand their target "audience". But that won't happen when you compete with a model with tighter margins against a model with higher margins. A top-of-the-line M3 shouldn't be a direct competitor with a middle-of-the-line MS. There can be an overlap (think top-of-the-line BMW 3-Series vs bottom-of-the-line BMW 5-Series), but it's a fine equilibrium.
As every brand in the market, Tesla have to maximize profit (think economy of scale vs low volume/high margins) and should create products that don't compete directly with each other across all range.
I'm also in the "the more the better" -bandwagon at this stage, as we (tech in general) have not yet reached the sufficent level of range with electric cars. When I talk with people (on forums not directly related to electric cars) the "lack of range" always pops up. People (not yet owning or interested in electric cars) seem to be very addicted to spend their time moving ahead on the road rather than stationary on "some station" reloading their vehicle. Let alone even worrying about the whole range issue at all when travelling.
If 200-250 miles was "enough" for electric cars, then gazoline cars propably should suffice 20-25miles range compared to the station network and time it takes to "reload" in comparison. Why do we have 500 to 1000km range for cars that can be reloaded in every corner in 2 minutes?
Personally, I'm in line since 31.3. but can't pull the trigger if not close to 350 or so miles. ($20K addition compared to base range is fine). I really hope they CAN AND WILL put that in the M3
If 200-250 miles was "enough" for electric cars, then gazoline cars propably should suffice 20-25miles range compared to the station network and time it takes to "reload" in comparison. Why do we have 500 to 1000km range for cars that can be reloaded in every corner in 2 minutes?
Personally, I'm in line since 31.3. but can't pull the trigger if not close to 350 or so miles. ($20K addition compared to base range is fine). I really hope they CAN AND WILL put that in the M3
As the OP on this thread, my question regarding "squeezing kWH into Model 3" was directly related to the new chemistry and architecture of the newer battery packs.
It was really more of a rhetorical question, because I know how this forum works by now. Even a simple yes/no question turns into a 5-page back and forth about every contingency that could possibly arise. And I actually mean that in a good way. Most of what's said on here is constructive and intriguing....and some people you have to put on ignore.
Now, my thoughts on packing as much range into the Model 3 that makes financial and manufacturing sense? If you're Elon, you have to do it, and here's why:
Public perception.
The Roadster, S, and X are still semi-rare in many locales, or they may not have been seen at all in many locations. To a good chunk of (at least the American) populace, Teslas are "rich people cars".
The Model 3 will change that, in a big way. In my town outside Boston, MA, no one currently has a Tesla. There are many in some surrounding towns, but I live in a blue collar town that has just recently started seeing an influx of white collar families as Boston expands outward. By the time late 2017/early 2018 rolls around, it's quite possible my Model 3 will be the only one in town. And from reading some of the S and X threads, I know what comes with that distinction: lots of questions, and being a "brand ambassador", whether you like it or not.
It will go a long way in the public's eyes. when they ask me what my range is, if I can answer with a number higher than 300. If I can tell them I can go just as far as many of their ICEs. For example, prior to my current Audi A3, I had a 2003 A4, V6, Quattro. It was a dependable tank that rode on rails. Loved that car in all weather....but she was thirsty. On the long road trip to see my wife's family in VA, it was almost always time to refuel near the bottom of the Jersey Turnpike headed southbound....which is roughly 300 miles.
If you had told me 5 years ago that I could get the same range(or better) from a safer, quieter, faster, more "optioned" EV, I would have thought you were crazy. And now.....here we are.
Tesla will crunch their numbers and put the most range into the Model 3 that makes sense against the bottom line. Then they will turn around and put the newer tech batteries into the S and X (and eventually Y).
It was really more of a rhetorical question, because I know how this forum works by now. Even a simple yes/no question turns into a 5-page back and forth about every contingency that could possibly arise. And I actually mean that in a good way. Most of what's said on here is constructive and intriguing....and some people you have to put on ignore.
Now, my thoughts on packing as much range into the Model 3 that makes financial and manufacturing sense? If you're Elon, you have to do it, and here's why:
Public perception.
The Roadster, S, and X are still semi-rare in many locales, or they may not have been seen at all in many locations. To a good chunk of (at least the American) populace, Teslas are "rich people cars".
The Model 3 will change that, in a big way. In my town outside Boston, MA, no one currently has a Tesla. There are many in some surrounding towns, but I live in a blue collar town that has just recently started seeing an influx of white collar families as Boston expands outward. By the time late 2017/early 2018 rolls around, it's quite possible my Model 3 will be the only one in town. And from reading some of the S and X threads, I know what comes with that distinction: lots of questions, and being a "brand ambassador", whether you like it or not.
It will go a long way in the public's eyes. when they ask me what my range is, if I can answer with a number higher than 300. If I can tell them I can go just as far as many of their ICEs. For example, prior to my current Audi A3, I had a 2003 A4, V6, Quattro. It was a dependable tank that rode on rails. Loved that car in all weather....but she was thirsty. On the long road trip to see my wife's family in VA, it was almost always time to refuel near the bottom of the Jersey Turnpike headed southbound....which is roughly 300 miles.
If you had told me 5 years ago that I could get the same range(or better) from a safer, quieter, faster, more "optioned" EV, I would have thought you were crazy. And now.....here we are.
Tesla will crunch their numbers and put the most range into the Model 3 that makes sense against the bottom line. Then they will turn around and put the newer tech batteries into the S and X (and eventually Y).
Garlan Garner
Banned
I agree....
Why stop there? Annihilate the competition. Be so far ahead of the game that there is no competition.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Once the 2170 is produced - why install another 18650? If the 2170 is better than the 18650 - why install another one?
Garlan Garner
Banned
I believe we are definitely within the range of consumers. Sufficient range for me is - Can I get where I need to be and back without running out of battery. If that range can get me 90% of where I need to go, then I'm happy and obviously so are hundreds of thousands of others.
EV is not competing with ICE concerning range. It does not have to. EV just needs to get people as far as they want to go and back. I don't want to pay the increased price of EV getting me 500 miles of range. I will rarely ever utilize the batteries needed for 400 miles +. So I don't want to buy them.
Lastly - The range of ICE cars aren't designed based on the number of gas stations available. Outside of the ability to buy potato chips on every corner.....there are just too many gas stations.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Tesla has already done that. It's called the Model S.
Like I explained earlier, Panasonic has factories in Japan that will continue churning out 18650-cells for some time yet. It's likely that Tesla has agreed to take delivery of these cells for a year or two after the Gigafactory is operational, allowing Panasonic to switch over the Japanese factories to the 21-70 format in their own time. (Or find other customers for them.) Panasonic is unlikely to have agreed to helping Tesla with the Gigafactory if the Gigafactory would render their Japanese factories worthless.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I understand what you are saying...however you are making a few assumptions here that are running away as facts. Elon said the 2170 is better and that the M3 will be designed with them. That means - No 18650's.
I don't know about anything factual about something being "Likely or Unlikely".
Concerning range the MS hasn't blown anything away. The BMW i8's range is better than the MS. The Chevy bolt will exit the assembly line with competitive range. The MB's E-Class range is competitive. I'm talking about blowing the competition away concerning all aspects of an EV.
Similar threads
