JeffK
Well-Known Member
All of our sources so far that say less than 60 kWh are from Jeff Evanson, Tesla's VP of Investor Relations on one call in April last year.
This was well before pencils down so who knows.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
This was well before pencils down so who knows.
Rashomon
Member
A Michelin engineer was quoted in a trade journal that Tesla was setting an aggressive target of rolling resistance COMBINED with cornering capability. i.e., they wanted tires that would both roll easily and corner in a combination that was going to require significant tire engineering progress to achieve. I'm sure that the base tires for the M3 will prioritize rolling resistance to some extent over performance, and the upgrade tires for the performance models will do the opposite. That's the way it works for the MS. And it's clear that they're not doing anything odd like the tires on the BMW i3 . . .
alseTrick
Active Member
Sample of 1 that says less than 60.
Not enough data for a meaningful conclusion.
A meaningful conclusion is that Tesla will outdo the competition.
Not enough data for a meaningful conclusion.
A meaningful conclusion is that Tesla will outdo the competition.
Is that determined by battery size or range? If they can get 250 miles from a lighter 50kWh battery I would prefer that.
By range. If Tesla somehow can pull 250 miles out of 50 kWh, they will do it.
Naysayers will then go about explaining how Bolt is somehow a better value because of bigger battery, no matter the range and everything else.
Similar to those ppl that feel cheated because they only got 83kWh battery in MS85. No matter the range.
I fully expect base Model 3 to have 250+ miles of range for advertised $35k.
With whatever battery, tires, motor etc configuration necessary.
Naysayers will then go about explaining how Bolt is somehow a better value because of bigger battery, no matter the range and everything else.
Similar to those ppl that feel cheated because they only got 83kWh battery in MS85. No matter the range.
I fully expect base Model 3 to have 250+ miles of range for advertised $35k.
With whatever battery, tires, motor etc configuration necessary.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Hmmm...
Sure. It could happen. In a Tesla Yaris.
50 kWh x 0.9 = 45 kWh
45,000 Wh ÷ 250 miles = 180 Wh/mile
45,000 Wh ÷ 250 miles = 180 Wh/mile
Sure. It could happen. In a Tesla Yaris.
I have a tendency to write really long posts, sorry. Different version (with funny responses here:
Model3OwnersClub )
This time I will shine some light from philosophical way of understanding cars.
Smaller pack has to give out around 215 mile range. 55kWh pack should be appropriate from many angles:
first of all, we all know that Model S came out (initially) with 40 (SF limited), 60 and 85 packs. 40 died immediately.
60 did not die. It is still here. And there is a reason. It is good enough for many. I'm sure Tesla learned that the range
people get from 60kWh pack (now limited to 60kWh, not actually 60kWh) is comfortable for many. Even for rich customers.
To get the same range number (above 200miles in most scenarios) little less is needed for a smaller vehicle.
I read most posts here and here and I'm happy to see my personal estimations coincide. 55kWh marketed number.
This pack would give promised range, even slightly more. Why definitely not 50kWh? Risk of getting "up to 200 mile vehicle" status.
Why definitely not 60kWh? Because this will give much better range than 60kWh Model S. And who want's that?
Should I remind everybody Model 3 audience is for low-mid up to mid-class? As a reservation holder, 55kWh is exactly
what I personally would want. No more and no less (thinking about depreciation).
Ok we now almost know (90-95% probability) that cheapest Model 3 will give out 215-225 miles out of 55kWh marketed pack.
What would be the upgrade option? Again, this time (compared to first link post) let's look at it not as mathematicians.
What are the options for Model S and X? First they had 25kWh upgrade. Considerable amount of range. Now it is 15kWh software,
15kWh physical, and 10kWh more as expensive flagship. Absolute maximum that evolved with years.
Would it be reasonable to offer 10kWh bigger pack? No. It is a small number even for Model3. Price difference is not that noticeable
and same with range. Especially if we start with 55kWh pack. 65kWh is too little.
How about 80kWh? No. Definitely not. It will require lots of space. That means Model 3 will be built around huge pack.
Who will buy 80kWh packs? Model 3 is not designed to be as long-trip friendly as Model S/X. Model 3 is smaller not because
it makes it cheaper to produce but because Model S/X are not appropriate for huge chunk customers around the globe.
Maybe it is hard to understand if you have never lived in heavily populated area in EU or CH or something similar.
Model S is very American vehicle. Big and fluffy. Comfortable to drive. Like a ship. But it doesn't fit into garages, parking spots.
Ideal for wealthier people who have their own garage, their own parking spot at work. Their own private driveway.
So maybe Model 3 should have 3 battery options? 55-65-75 I don't think so. Production should be as efficient as possible.
Vehicle itself must be designed around the biggest pack (weight, dimensions). Why?? Less than 20% buy the biggest pack.
I'm sure biggest battery pack is far from top priority for Model3 overall design.
Also, even with battery prices going down sharply, 80kWh will not be cheap and not light (in 2017-2018).
And lastly, 80kWh might already push the limits of Model 3. Look what happened with Model S. From 85 to 90. From 90 to 100.
I expect little less on Model 3 (optimal pack design from 2017, aka no wasted space). Having 80kWh option in 2017 will be way too early.
How about 75kWh? That is almost awesome. But it is still way too much range. Also problems with vehicle weight, suspension,
tire dimensions. Also having a 80kWh option 2-4 years later will not be spectacular if 75kWh was available from the start.
How about 70kWh? That sounds reasonable. It is 15kWh more. In range it is like 20kWh more on Model S/X.
That is a huge step. In addition, adding front motor with different gearing will extend range even more.
Which might result in Model 3 be advertised as "200-300 mile affordable EV".
This was my guess as soon as I heard "at least 215miles with AWD optional" from Mr Musk.
And lately, somebody saw Model 3 70D. That seems just about right.
But like I mentioned in the other post, 2 different packs doesn't mean only 2 ranges. Due to AWD and rim options there will be more.
All things combined should work in a harmony. Mr Musk (and most of us) agree, that having more and more range doesn't
help a lot. 50-150 miles more range isn't helping if you have lousy charging options while having 1000 mile trip. (khm.khm 50kW)
Model 3, as a vehicle, has more priority in metro-life than Model S/X. It's also true for BMW 3 series compared to 5-7.
This means vehicle overall dimensions are more important than range. Having a vehicle designed for 80kWh pack is
not reasonable, especially if more than 50% of the sales are opting/happy with 200 mile range.
In conclusion.
Model 355 as a base - will kill all Nuts and Bolts.
Model 355D as one of the most loved version in many parts of the world (snow). As a bonus better range than 220mi.
Model 370 - preferred by long distance travelers (or taxi), more frunk space. I personally think this will be rare selection.
Model 370D - ultimate choice for mid-class customers who want excellent performance for less money than Model S60.
Model P370D - the most powerful version. Will require bigger tires in the rear. Expensive.
As a second level prediction I expect model preference distribution something like 25% 35% 10% 20% 10%.
Model3OwnersClub )
This time I will shine some light from philosophical way of understanding cars.
Smaller pack has to give out around 215 mile range. 55kWh pack should be appropriate from many angles:
first of all, we all know that Model S came out (initially) with 40 (SF limited), 60 and 85 packs. 40 died immediately.
60 did not die. It is still here. And there is a reason. It is good enough for many. I'm sure Tesla learned that the range
people get from 60kWh pack (now limited to 60kWh, not actually 60kWh) is comfortable for many. Even for rich customers.
To get the same range number (above 200miles in most scenarios) little less is needed for a smaller vehicle.
I read most posts here and here and I'm happy to see my personal estimations coincide. 55kWh marketed number.
This pack would give promised range, even slightly more. Why definitely not 50kWh? Risk of getting "up to 200 mile vehicle" status.
Why definitely not 60kWh? Because this will give much better range than 60kWh Model S. And who want's that?
Should I remind everybody Model 3 audience is for low-mid up to mid-class? As a reservation holder, 55kWh is exactly
what I personally would want. No more and no less (thinking about depreciation).
Ok we now almost know (90-95% probability) that cheapest Model 3 will give out 215-225 miles out of 55kWh marketed pack.
What would be the upgrade option? Again, this time (compared to first link post) let's look at it not as mathematicians.
What are the options for Model S and X? First they had 25kWh upgrade. Considerable amount of range. Now it is 15kWh software,
15kWh physical, and 10kWh more as expensive flagship. Absolute maximum that evolved with years.
Would it be reasonable to offer 10kWh bigger pack? No. It is a small number even for Model3. Price difference is not that noticeable
and same with range. Especially if we start with 55kWh pack. 65kWh is too little.
How about 80kWh? No. Definitely not. It will require lots of space. That means Model 3 will be built around huge pack.
Who will buy 80kWh packs? Model 3 is not designed to be as long-trip friendly as Model S/X. Model 3 is smaller not because
it makes it cheaper to produce but because Model S/X are not appropriate for huge chunk customers around the globe.
Maybe it is hard to understand if you have never lived in heavily populated area in EU or CH or something similar.
Model S is very American vehicle. Big and fluffy. Comfortable to drive. Like a ship. But it doesn't fit into garages, parking spots.
Ideal for wealthier people who have their own garage, their own parking spot at work. Their own private driveway.
So maybe Model 3 should have 3 battery options? 55-65-75 I don't think so. Production should be as efficient as possible.
Vehicle itself must be designed around the biggest pack (weight, dimensions). Why?? Less than 20% buy the biggest pack.
I'm sure biggest battery pack is far from top priority for Model3 overall design.
Also, even with battery prices going down sharply, 80kWh will not be cheap and not light (in 2017-2018).
And lastly, 80kWh might already push the limits of Model 3. Look what happened with Model S. From 85 to 90. From 90 to 100.
I expect little less on Model 3 (optimal pack design from 2017, aka no wasted space). Having 80kWh option in 2017 will be way too early.
How about 75kWh? That is almost awesome. But it is still way too much range. Also problems with vehicle weight, suspension,
tire dimensions. Also having a 80kWh option 2-4 years later will not be spectacular if 75kWh was available from the start.
How about 70kWh? That sounds reasonable. It is 15kWh more. In range it is like 20kWh more on Model S/X.
That is a huge step. In addition, adding front motor with different gearing will extend range even more.
Which might result in Model 3 be advertised as "200-300 mile affordable EV".
This was my guess as soon as I heard "at least 215miles with AWD optional" from Mr Musk.
And lately, somebody saw Model 3 70D. That seems just about right.
But like I mentioned in the other post, 2 different packs doesn't mean only 2 ranges. Due to AWD and rim options there will be more.
All things combined should work in a harmony. Mr Musk (and most of us) agree, that having more and more range doesn't
help a lot. 50-150 miles more range isn't helping if you have lousy charging options while having 1000 mile trip. (khm.khm 50kW)
Model 3, as a vehicle, has more priority in metro-life than Model S/X. It's also true for BMW 3 series compared to 5-7.
This means vehicle overall dimensions are more important than range. Having a vehicle designed for 80kWh pack is
not reasonable, especially if more than 50% of the sales are opting/happy with 200 mile range.
In conclusion.
Model 355 as a base - will kill all Nuts and Bolts.
Model 355D as one of the most loved version in many parts of the world (snow). As a bonus better range than 220mi.
Model 370 - preferred by long distance travelers (or taxi), more frunk space. I personally think this will be rare selection.
Model 370D - ultimate choice for mid-class customers who want excellent performance for less money than Model S60.
Model P370D - the most powerful version. Will require bigger tires in the rear. Expensive.
As a second level prediction I expect model preference distribution something like 25% 35% 10% 20% 10%.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
This argument doesn't hold water. I can buy a brand new ICE car for under $20K with a greater range. An equivalent battery in a Model 3 will always get more range than a Model S. That's no reason to purposely sabotage the car. People want range, that's going to be a given.
All battery packs are the same physical size as far as I know. It'll just weigh more.
What? I'd argue that due to the increased backseat headroom it's probably more long-trip friendly. (Including better range per kWh)
People are going to be upset if Tesla decides to purposely cripple the Model 3.
This doesn't make sense either. Having a higher capacity allows a faster charge rate 1 C for a 60 kWh pack is slower than 1 C on an 90 kWh pack. Having the extra range also means faster charging (even at a supercharger).
There are also people who will buy the Bolt simply because of the extra 23 miles of range. For me, 23 miles is a full one way trip from home to work. A great many people share the mentality that more == better regardless of the truth.
Last edited:
Let's never ever compare ICE vehicle ranges. Because they don't have range as an obstacle. Doesn't matter is it 300 or 3000 miles.
For a BEV, range is always an obstacle, even if car can travel for 16 hours straight. Some people can't plug in even at home. 3000 miles will still run out one day.
Yes, all battery packs are the same size but if you include 80kWh pack option in 2017 for Model 3, that will make any variation of Model 3 battery bigger. And that includes 55kWh option. There will be massive amounts of lost space on all 55kWh Model3-s.
Much more than if we limit Model 3 to 70kWh pack.
Good, that you argue (with reasons written down) to my estimation that Model3 will not be as good "summer vacation 3000 mile roundtrip car" as Model S/X.
Nobody is going to purposely cripple Tesla. But people do understand, that wanting more total space from a small vehicle is unreasonable demand (except more room from EV than from comparable sized ICE). When people travel, they also take luggage with them. Model 3 will not handle as much luggage as Model S if there are, for example, 4 adults traveling. Sufficient head space is not a bonus, it is a requirement. Model S doesn't pass that for rear passengers. Good cargo capacity is a bonus which Model S / X definitely get. Coming back to Earth. Model 3 cargo capacity will be much less than Model S. But Model 3 will definitely have more cargo capacity than, for example, BMW 3-series (sedan body style only). Tesla is not trying to make Model 3 "very slightly" smaller vehicle than Model S. But they learned from mistakes they made (rear head space, coat hangers, cup holders, stuff like that) and it will be more appropriate vehicle for it's dimensions (lots of room for 4 passengers and slightly more cargo capacity than ICE competitors with sedan body style).
Ok, we got the point that is technically more complex. But I like that.
Model 3 higher capacity model will not charge as fast as Model S higher capacity models can (likely near equal if we measure in gained range per minute).
This depends on many factors but one of those will be cooling capacity. Model 3 will have (very very likely)
only one AC radiator and one coolant radiator. Even if we combine their total heat extraction rate (they are stacked together)
it will be very unlikely that Model 3 with the bigger pack (no matter how big, 70 or 100) will not be capable to charge at speeds
Model S 90-100 kWh pack can in nice weather. Model S/X have more capable cooling system due to bigger fresh air intake area.
And 90-100 packs that charge at near max speed (~120kW rate) are maxing out even that cooling capacity.
Therefore charging speed is not going to climb proportionally at some point (for me, it is too hard to estimate/predict) even if SC
and battery are capable. I expect (according to Bjorn's video samples) rates still will go above 100kW rate in not hot weather.
In addition to that, having cell diameter larger doesn't help to heat extraction. Actually it is worse (if coolant is running the way it runs around S/X cells). Don't worry. I'm sure Tesla knows that and 21mm is good enough that it will not have any considerable limitations at superchargers due to cell dimensions. Most likely dual loop P100D pack has solves some of that hassle.
Priority for Model 3 will definitely be better drag coefficient. That means going wild with radiators is not.
As far as I've seen prototype pictures intake seems to me just about right size for 100kW rate. Hope they can afford louvers there, at least for vehicles with cold weather package (if they don't upgrade to heat pump system, which is likely).
In Musk I trust
For a BEV, range is always an obstacle, even if car can travel for 16 hours straight. Some people can't plug in even at home. 3000 miles will still run out one day.
Yes, all battery packs are the same size but if you include 80kWh pack option in 2017 for Model 3, that will make any variation of Model 3 battery bigger. And that includes 55kWh option. There will be massive amounts of lost space on all 55kWh Model3-s.
Much more than if we limit Model 3 to 70kWh pack.
Good, that you argue (with reasons written down) to my estimation that Model3 will not be as good "summer vacation 3000 mile roundtrip car" as Model S/X.
Nobody is going to purposely cripple Tesla. But people do understand, that wanting more total space from a small vehicle is unreasonable demand (except more room from EV than from comparable sized ICE). When people travel, they also take luggage with them. Model 3 will not handle as much luggage as Model S if there are, for example, 4 adults traveling. Sufficient head space is not a bonus, it is a requirement. Model S doesn't pass that for rear passengers. Good cargo capacity is a bonus which Model S / X definitely get. Coming back to Earth. Model 3 cargo capacity will be much less than Model S. But Model 3 will definitely have more cargo capacity than, for example, BMW 3-series (sedan body style only). Tesla is not trying to make Model 3 "very slightly" smaller vehicle than Model S. But they learned from mistakes they made (rear head space, coat hangers, cup holders, stuff like that) and it will be more appropriate vehicle for it's dimensions (lots of room for 4 passengers and slightly more cargo capacity than ICE competitors with sedan body style).
Ok, we got the point that is technically more complex. But I like that.
Model 3 higher capacity model will not charge as fast as Model S higher capacity models can (likely near equal if we measure in gained range per minute).
This depends on many factors but one of those will be cooling capacity. Model 3 will have (very very likely)
only one AC radiator and one coolant radiator. Even if we combine their total heat extraction rate (they are stacked together)
it will be very unlikely that Model 3 with the bigger pack (no matter how big, 70 or 100) will not be capable to charge at speeds
Model S 90-100 kWh pack can in nice weather. Model S/X have more capable cooling system due to bigger fresh air intake area.
And 90-100 packs that charge at near max speed (~120kW rate) are maxing out even that cooling capacity.
Therefore charging speed is not going to climb proportionally at some point (for me, it is too hard to estimate/predict) even if SC
and battery are capable. I expect (according to Bjorn's video samples) rates still will go above 100kW rate in not hot weather.
In addition to that, having cell diameter larger doesn't help to heat extraction. Actually it is worse (if coolant is running the way it runs around S/X cells). Don't worry. I'm sure Tesla knows that and 21mm is good enough that it will not have any considerable limitations at superchargers due to cell dimensions. Most likely dual loop P100D pack has solves some of that hassle.
Priority for Model 3 will definitely be better drag coefficient. That means going wild with radiators is not.
As far as I've seen prototype pictures intake seems to me just about right size for 100kW rate. Hope they can afford louvers there, at least for vehicles with cold weather package (if they don't upgrade to heat pump system, which is likely).
In Musk I trust
Musk's tweet about <100kWh pack size mentions the wheelbase being the limiting factor. In another thread, @stopcrazypp did a nice job analyzing the rough form-factor layout of the Model 3 pack we saw depicted, cell size change, and chemistry advance estimates.
He extrapolated that 95+ kWh could be possible for a pack size that fits within the Model 3 wheelbase. I've run a few variations of my own, and agree that 90 or more could be feasible.
I'm not suggesting that will necessarily be an offered size option, but am of the opinion that trunk/frunk space would not be impacted by 80+kWh sized packs given that it's all possible within the assumed existing pack footprint.
As Musk said 100kWh is not going to fit, then he said it will not fit when Model 3 arrives, nor few years later.
If he was planning for 85-90kWh then telling "100kWh won't fit" would be incorrect/lie.
He would say "maybe later" or something similar. He wrote off 100kWh version for good.
Huge battery capacity has two inevitable byproducts: lots of space and lots of extra mass.
We can find space for 100kW. We just remove front motor, add more battery thickness under the rear
bench. But that will make Model 3 weight as much as 90kWh Model S. It will fail to get 5 stars in crash
ratings. I'm 99% sure of that. Also it will mean at least two totally different suspension designs, plus brakes.
I put my hand to the heart and with absolute certainty tell that 90kWh pack will not be available with AWD.
And it doesn't make any sense to have it without AWD.
In addition to extremely expensive investment due to that foolish step (lots of design requirements) any Model
3 version with battery capacity above 300 miles will have market share (all variation summed up) less than 10%.
Plus extensive losses on Model S P-variation sales.
90kWh in 2020, that might be possible.
If he was planning for 85-90kWh then telling "100kWh won't fit" would be incorrect/lie.
He would say "maybe later" or something similar. He wrote off 100kWh version for good.
Huge battery capacity has two inevitable byproducts: lots of space and lots of extra mass.
We can find space for 100kW. We just remove front motor, add more battery thickness under the rear
bench. But that will make Model 3 weight as much as 90kWh Model S. It will fail to get 5 stars in crash
ratings. I'm 99% sure of that. Also it will mean at least two totally different suspension designs, plus brakes.
I put my hand to the heart and with absolute certainty tell that 90kWh pack will not be available with AWD.
And it doesn't make any sense to have it without AWD.
In addition to extremely expensive investment due to that foolish step (lots of design requirements) any Model
3 version with battery capacity above 300 miles will have market share (all variation summed up) less than 10%.
Plus extensive losses on Model S P-variation sales.
90kWh in 2020, that might be possible.
Last edited:
JeffK
Well-Known Member
85-90 kWh < 100 kWh so by definition that wouldn't be a lie.
Again, all batteries for the Model 3 will likely be the same physical size regardless of capacity. Whatever fits with current cooling tech fits. Lower capacities will probably use empties like Model S
We know 100 kWh isn't possible according to Elon. But lets look at the difference between a 70 kWh battery and a 90 kWh battery (20 kWh) using energy density from the Powerpack 2 (130 Wh / kg)
Adding 20 kWh would be (20000/130) = 153.8 kg or around 340 lbs (the weight of two adults). I highly doubt that would drastically affect crash ratings.
Keep in mind in each one of your comparisons you are making it sound like the Model 3 is simply a smaller, less desirable, Model S. Instead, realize that the Model 3 was designed from the ground up with all the knowledge accumulated from the Roadster, Model S, and X. Some of the difficult to change engineering constraints are totally gone. While it may not have as many flashy items as the Model S/X like self presenting door handles, it will be a third generation car therefore has quite a few improvements over Model S/X in addition to being more efficient in everything from the reduced weight, reduced drag coefficient, more efficient inverters, more backseat headroom, etc.
Last edited:
No, no definite source, but a lot of "hints" from a lot of places I have read - especially some of the earlies tests - have indicated 60-61kWh *usable* battery. And a lot of other hints picked up from a lot of different places does indicate it is a big buffer at the top. One source from GM slipped and talked early about a 66 or 67kWh battery. One did the math and got to 71kW (I think it was?).
But nothing of this is sure, and may even be changed in the production model (as all of this was talk was about the pre-production model) for all that I know....
Keep in mind that Tesla AWD does not have a greater range then the RWD version (as it is implemented on Model S+X) when it's gets colder then about 4-5°C, as it then is full-time AWD, and does not use "Torque sleep".
Similar threads
