Tesla cuts 60kWh Model S, entry-level Model S is now 70D.

[vgrinshpun]

This is a very good presentation. I like the chart. I'm not sure where you are getting the Wh/mile figures. I'm sure you addressed that in earlier posts, and they seem to scale with simple ratios of kWh battery to miles range.

There is still enough ambiguity here that critics can dispute it all they want. But Tesla has a long history of dropping clues here and there that some are able to piece together and see where the company is headed while others just want to dismiss. In time, these things will become clear. I suspect that Tesla will launch the Model X with 70 and 100 packs, and it will be clearer that we are dealing with higher density cell, unless the 100 pack are bulkier and heavier.

So let's just weight and see. I know all I need to know to hold my shares. The risk here is to shorts if they assume that Tesla has not developed higher density batteries.

The Wh/mile figures come from the EPA range divided by usable capacity of the battery. Usable capacity is taken to be 95% of the nominal capacity based on the statement from the Manual that 5% is reserved for "bricking" protection, as explained here.

The bottom line is that chart shows that there was no increase in energy consumption of 70D as compared to 60 to account for the increased weight of the battery pack. I do not see how is this possible unless the weight of the 60 and 70D packs is approximately the same. This, in turn, would indicate that 70D pack contains next generation cells with higher volumetric and gravimetric energy density.

Tesla also seem to take highly unusual step of ***lowering*** their EPA overall range from 245 to 240. The EPA city/highway ranges shown in InsideEVs article, however, were not lowered, and EPA formula of 45% citi, 55% highway combined range results in 245 miles, not 240: 0.45*242.8+0.55*246.4=245. I think that TM decided to "voluntarily lower" the range to 240 because they want more differentiation between 70D and 85D, and, perhaps, do not want to "show all their cards" regarding the next generation cells. They clearly do not want to telegraph that 85D is likely to become 100D some time this year after launching MX because it might result in some people delaying their orders until that happens.

EPA data from the InsideEVs article linked above (with my highlights):

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps someone has some info on the weight of these cars that may shed some light. For the time being, I remain optimistic that Tesla does have a slightly higher density cell. They are due for this and would really want to try this out before putting it in the Model X.

We will have to rely on some of the Automobile publications to provide weight information as part of their reviews, or... wait until TM updates their Manual. It contains a lot information, but very few people seem to use it as a source. For example there is long lived myth that 60 and 85 battery packs weigh the same because 60 pack uses dummy cells in empty spots. This can not be true because according to the Manual cars with 60kWh pack weigh 223 lbs less than cars with85kWh pack. This squares with the approximate weight of each cell of 45.4g (Panasonic NCR1865A) plus some additional savings in casing of the modules, cooling, etc.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

So from storage to range, the 70D gets more range per kWh than the 85D. Perhaps the weight difference assuming identical cell is sufficient to explain this, but we also cannot be sure that these cells are identical. The 60 got 288 Wh/mile which is almost the same as the 70D, but this comparison does not allow for efficiency gains through the D. This is close enough that I cannot rule out the possibility that the 60 pack and 70 pack are the same mass. Perhaps someone has some info on the weight of these cars that may shed some light. For the time being, I remain optimistic that Tesla does have a slightly higher density cell. They are due for this and would really want to try this out before putting it in the Model X.

On page 3 of this article ( http://www.greencarreports.com/news...t-drive-of-new-electric-car-base-model/page-3 ) posted today, David Noland says "A Tesla spokesman confirmed to me that the bigger battery capacity comes from more cells, not better ones."

 

[anticitizen13.7]

On page 3 of this article ( http://www.greencarreports.com/news...t-drive-of-new-electric-car-base-model/page-3 ) posted today, David Noland says "A Tesla spokesman confirmed to me that the bigger battery capacity comes from more cells, not better ones."

Makes sense. Elon had previously stated no upgrade to the max range of the Model S for awhile. And I doubt that Tesla would have gone with a new chemistry until the Gigafactory is up and running next year.

 

[glhs272]

I think we are seeing the first appearance of new cells. These new cells were required for the Model X to achieve 200+ range with the base model. Like AWD we are seeing this appear on the Model S first. My guess is these new cells are still 18650 with new chemistry/tweaks to anode and cathode. If I am right, we will be seeing a 100kwh pack soon.

Well bummer, looks like I was wrong. On the flip side, perhaps the 70 pack is just adding 2 more 60 type modules, therefore running at the same voltage as an 85 pack. Would be easy to find out by supercharging one. Has anyone done a supercharge on a 70D yet?

 

[scaesare]

On page 3 of this article ( http://www.greencarreports.com/news...t-drive-of-new-electric-car-base-model/page-3 ) posted today, David Noland says "A Tesla spokesman confirmed to me that the bigger battery capacity comes from more cells, not better ones."

Many of us have argued.. er... "surmised" this.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time somebody purportedly from Tesla had bad info, but I suspect it is correct.

 

[xhawk101]

Is there a new delivery thread for the 70 D?

 

[Robert.Boston]

Many of us have argued.. er... "surmised" this.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time somebody purportedly from Tesla had bad info, but I suspect it is correct.

OK, I'll retract my speculation that this was a new chemistry. Too bad; new chemistry would have been VERY good news.

 

[Gtoffo]

OK, I'll retract my speculation that this was a new chemistry. Too bad; new chemistry would have been VERY good news.

How do we explain that graph though? The data seems to indicate an efficiency improvement SOMEWHERE. It HAS to be hardware related or they would have rolled it out to the 85D also. So this leaves improved batteries/motors/inverters/weight?

Unless the relationship between kWh and Wh/Mile is (very) non-linear.......could that explain it?

Who is this spokesman? Is it a reliable source? Do we have confirmation from anywhere else?

 

[dirkhh]

How do we explain that graph though? The data seems to indicate an efficiency improvement SOMEWHERE. It HAS to be hardware related or they would have rolled it out to the 85D also. So this leaves improved batteries/motors/inverters/weight?
Unless the relationship between kWh and Wh/Mile is (very) non-linear.......could that explain it?

There are lots of variables that go into this to make this a non-linear equation. And one thing to note is that Tesla's numbers often don't add up because they under report and over report depending on what they deem useful.
So no, I don't think we have enough information to KNOW one way or another.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

How do we explain that graph though? The data seems to indicate an efficiency improvement SOMEWHERE. It HAS to be hardware related or they would have rolled it out to the 85D also. So this leaves improved batteries/motors/inverters/weight?

Unless the relationship between kWh and Wh/Mile is (very) non-linear.......could that explain it?

Who is this spokesman? Is it a reliable source? Do we have confirmation from anywhere else?

I was hoping for a new battery chemistry too...or an 85 kWh battery software limited to 70 kWh. Oh well. It would be nice to get additional information on what actually changed.

 

[scaesare]

OK, I'll retract my speculation that this was a new chemistry. Too bad; new chemistry would have been VERY good news.

I certainly agree with you new chemistry would be good news. Good enough to hopefully warrant something more significant than quietly slip-streaming it in to an existing product lineup where it wasn't necessary.

That having been said, just because it may not be in the 70KWh packs, that doesn't mean Tesla isn't quite far along in building/testing it currently..

 

[Gtoffo]

There are lots of variables that go into this to make this a non-linear equation. And one thing to note is that Tesla's numbers often don't add up because they under report and over report depending on what they deem useful.
So no, I don't think we have enough information to KNOW one way or another.

Well we should be able to KNOW for sure that the new car is MORE efficient. The reason behind that improvement is hard to pinpoint....will be interesting if we manage to get data on the weight of the car.

 

[dirkhh]

Well we should be able to KNOW for sure that the new car is MORE efficient. The reason behind that improvement is hard to pinpoint....will be interesting if we manage to get data on the weight of the car.

We know that Tesla CLAIMS the new car is more efficient. Talk to people who got their P85D in December / January about the differences of what Tesla claims when it come to efficiency and what they actually experienced...

 

[neroden]

How do we explain that graph though? The data seems to indicate an efficiency improvement SOMEWHERE. It HAS to be hardware related

We know what it is.

The front and rear motors are constructed with different gearing. Therefore, on a standard efficiency test, which tests several different speeds, the dual-motor version gets the benefit of a "two speed" transmission, whereas the single-motor version has a "one-speed" transmission.

The P models appear to have their software designed in such a way as to eliminate this benefit, working the motors in tandem and focusing on top acceleration instead. But the non-P models seem to have focused on directing power more to the front at low speeds and more to the rear at high speeds, gaining the efficiency benefit of two different gearings. I suppose the efficiency is probably lost when the AWD needs to kick in properly on snow and ice.

 

[Gtoffo]

We know that Tesla CLAIMS the new car is more efficient. Talk to people who got their P85D in December / January about the differences of what Tesla claims when it come to efficiency and what they actually experienced...

We have standardised and independent tests made by the EPA that confirm a higher efficiency. Of course individual milage may vary

We know what it is.

The front and rear motors are constructed with different gearing. Therefore, on a standard efficiency test, which tests several different speeds, the dual-motor version gets the benefit of a "two speed" transmission, whereas the single-motor version has a "one-speed" transmission.

The P models appear to have their software designed in such a way as to eliminate this benefit, working the motors in tandem and focusing on top acceleration instead. But the non-P models seem to have focused on directing power more to the front at low speeds and more to the rear at high speeds, gaining the efficiency benefit of two different gearings. I suppose the efficiency is probably lost when the AWD needs to kick in properly on snow and ice.

Yes but this has been accounted for in our analysis. 70D is still more efficient than what a hypothetical 70 should be.

 

[Tedkidd]

I think that TM has something in the works by getting rid of the "S" 60. The range may be to close to what the up coming Model 3 may have on the top end. Think about it... the 60 was TM's gateway product into the S line.

Maybe it has to do with Supercharging. Did I read somewhere that the 60's charge rate is a fair amount slower, even at close to flat? VERY interested to see supercharging rate curve...

Maybe 70 is a sweet spot for charging times. If you need 175 to comfortably make your next jump, your last 25 can happen fast if 240 is your capacity. Not so much if 206 is.

And an extra 2-3 minutes at a Supercharger (85 to 70) to receive enough juice to make the next Supercharger is much less noticeable than an extra 15 minutes (60).

This is designing to fit needs AND perceptions.

And let's face it, to appeal to the masses, Electric Vehicles need to be able to take road trips.

 

[Yuri_G]

The new efficiency gains probably come from weight savings and the dual motor gearing. Elon mentioned in the 2014 Q2 conference call that the new cars they were building were hundreds of pounds lighter. I imagine they have found some more weight savings and in addition to the gearing it's bringing greater efficiency overall.

"The Model S has gotten steadily lighter over time. It’s really like, you know, it’s quarter a pound here, half pound there, but the Model S in production today is at least a few hundred pounds less than that in the start of production. And we’ll continue to see improvements over time."

 

[Gtoffo]

The new efficiency gains probably come from weight savings and the dual motor gearing. Elon mentioned in the 2014 Q2 conference call that the new cars they were building were hundreds of pounds lighter. I imagine they have found some more weight savings and in addition to the gearing it's bringing greater efficiency overall.

"a few hundred"=300lbs out of a total of 4650lbs would mean a >5% decrease in weight...so that could be it.

...but the gains would translate to the 85D also...

 

[dhanson865]

But the non-P models seem to have focused on directing power more to the front at low speeds and more to the rear at high speeds, gaining the efficiency benefit of two different gearings.

I was under the impression it was mostly rear motor at low speeds and front motor at high speeds.

 

[Bighorn]

I was under the impression it was mostly rear motor at low speeds and front motor at high speeds.

That was my understanding as well when there were two different sized motors. Not sure if that scheme changed with symmetric motors.