# Elon Confirmed: 75kWh max battery for Model 3



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845325721455149056


----------



## samson (Mar 8, 2017)

garsh said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845325721455149056


Somebody STOP ELON!!!!.

This is too much to digest in 2 hrs


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

As much as I love Elons Twitter sometimes he causes more questions then answers. I'm more thinking that he's taking about the 18650 cell and not the 2170 considering the 2170 can only be found in Tesla Energy products ATM. I'd probably be happy about the 75KWH battery myself.. I'd feel compelled to get the largest pack available for a bit of futureproofing but I'd rather have a bunch of options.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Brian_North said:


> As much as I love Elons Twitter sometimes he causes more questions then answers. I'm more thinking that he's taking about the 18650 cell and not the 2170 considering the 2170 can only be found in Tesla Energy products ATM. I'd probably be happy about the 75KWH battery myself.. I'd feel compelled to get the largest pack available for a bit of futureproofing but I'd rather have a bunch of options.


Interesting observation. I hadn't thought that he could be referring to 18650 cells.

Dan


----------



## samson (Mar 8, 2017)

Does it mean the the Model 3 Performance could use 2170 and have more KWh and better performance and efficiency ?


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

samson said:


> Does it mean the the Model 3 Performance could use 2170 and have more KWh and better performance and efficiency ?


I am pretty sure that ALL Tesla cars will use the 21700 cells once they begin making them for auto use. Right now they are just being made for Powerwall and Powerpack installation.

Dan


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> I am pretty sure that ALL Tesla cars will use the 21700 cells once they begin making them for auto use. Right now they are just being made for Powerwall and Powerpack installation.
> 
> Dan


Precisely. The 3 is their first chance to redesign the pack completely and use the new cell. The S and X will get the same cell at some point but nobody knows when. The 2170 is just being used in the new 200KWH Powerpack and 14KWH Powerwall at the moment and soonish they should start stockpiling cells for the Model3. They said sometime beginning int he second quarter.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Brian_North said:


> I'm more thinking that he's taking about the 18650 cell and not the 2170


The plan has always been to use 2170 cells in the 3. I think he was setting expectations, not trying to be cute with his answer.


----------



## Dangermouse (Apr 27, 2016)

Wondering if the car's wheelbase is a little smaller than has been conjectured. Lots of comparisons with the wheelbase essentially being the same as the S, so the max battery estimates were ~85-100 kWh. If 75 is the max, maybe the wheelbase is closer to 20% smaller versus the 10% that we've been assuming for the past year or so.


----------



## Watts4me (Nov 25, 2016)

"Model 3 at current cell/module energy densities".
The key word is current. I believe it will be revised in the future.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

Dangermouse said:


> Wondering if the car's wheelbase is a little smaller than has been conjectured. Lots of comparisons with the wheelbase essentially being the same as the S, so the max battery estimates were ~85-100 kWh. If 75 is the max, maybe the wheelbase is closer to 20% smaller versus the 10% that we've been assuming for the past year or so.


It's not. The wheelbase on Model 3 is shorter and the car is narrower as well. Battery pack is this physically smaller than the Model S


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

I also think limiting the initial Model 3 versions to 75 gives them somewhere to go the following year, and the one after that. I'm not so much believing that 75 is the max space available, especially with the updated cells. Plus it's a good breaking point with the Model S. They have no need to overlap the battery size between the 3 and S... keeps the S and X feeling like the grownups not being outdone by the new kid. And you know with the new AI computers in them, you want them to feel good about themselves.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

So...

A plain Jane 75 Model S is rated at 265 miles of range. This is with the 18650 cells. New cells...smaller car...I don't think 300 miles on a 75 Model 3 is out of the question. Am I being too optimistic here?

Dan


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> So...
> 
> A plain Jane 75 Model S is rated at 265 miles of range. This is with the 18650 cells. New cells...smaller car...I don't think 300 miles on a 75 Model 3 is out of the question. Am I being too optimistic here?
> 
> Dan


Nope. _*250/300*..._ IMHO, that is the new window (can't repeat range all the time !! ) - in ETA spec miles - for Model ≡ ranges (respectively for smaller/larger battery sizes)...


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> So...
> 
> A plain Jane 75 Model S is rated at 265 miles of range. This is with the 18650 cells. New cells...smaller car...I don't think 300 miles on a 75 Model 3 is out of the question. Am I being too optimistic here?
> 
> Dan


Well I for one would be very happy if they can actually pull that off, but this would mean some pretty incredible new efficiencies have been achieved in the electronics and drivetrain. My back-of-the-envelope math has a hard time arriving at 75 kWh = 300 miles even when factoring in the smaller size and better cD, because it's still gotta weigh north of 4000 lbs. Even if a stripper AWD 75 does manage 300 miles, I really can't see the Performance model doing it, which is absolutely what I wanted. Speaking of which the 75 kWh is also going to significantly limit maximum possible acceleration. Ugh.
My head was just spinning last night as to what to do.
Up until now I was ready to go all-in on a maxed-out PxxD setup. But if it won't at least offer old-school P85D Insane performance or manage 300 miles then I might just settle for a bare-bones AWD until a more energy dense pack (and HUD, etc.) are available. Let's hope I'm proven wrong!


----------



## Daliman (Apr 20, 2016)

I think the video was put out to prove that production ramp is on target. I think the tweets were put out to limit the frenzy of expectations this would cause and maintain S sales in the meantime. The test drives were in dual motor final drivetrain cars. The acceleration is there you can tell from the videos but wont top the S fewer would buy one if it did. It will likely blow away anything in this class and price range. 

I am still hoping this tweet was so carefully phrased because he is leaving open battery improvements he knows are coming. Current = 18650 July=2170.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2017)

Brian_North said:


> I'm more thinking that he's taking about the 18650 cell and not the 2170 considering the *2170 can only be found in Tesla Energy products* ATM


Bold part is incorrect presumption. We know that Model 3 will use 2170 cells. We already saw Model 3 being driven.
Therefore 2170 cells are being used in production candidates ATM.
Designing pre-production Model 3 battery pack with 18650 cells is extremely extensive work. It did not happen and never will.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

arnis said:


> Bold part is incorrect presumption. We know that Model 3 will use 2170 cells. We already saw Model 3 being driven.
> Therefore 2170 cells are being used in production candidates ATM. (...)


Correct... yet I think @Brian_North 's statement was referring to _commercially_ _available_ T≡SLA products, which does not yet include Model ≡... it really depends on how one interprets the word 'current' in Elon's tweet...
In the end it does not matter that much, or, as our very own @TrevP is know to say 'it's not the end of the world'...  There will be constant improvements with this and other T≡SLA cars as time goes... Everybody can delay their order once, yet I think there will be enough folks who will be happy to jump a few spots in line because they don't need the fanciest, fully loaded car... And there is no better alternative one in sight on the market for some time... So, to each her/his own!
Things are (going to) get better, things are getting better.... Every day...


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

Dan Detweiler said:


> So...
> 
> A plain Jane 75 Model S is rated at 265 miles of range. This is with the 18650 cells. New cells...smaller car...I don't think 300 miles on a 75 Model 3 is out of the question. Am I being too optimistic here?
> 
> Dan


Hold on here, 75kWh is still 75kWh no matter what the cells sizes are!!!

We do know that Model 3 will have new 300kw inverters:

https://electrek.co/2016/06/29/tesl...inverter-architecture-power-capacity-model-s/

So we can expect at least the same range as a Model S with a 75kWh pack and that's before any efficiencies in inverter technology, weight savings, tire resistance changes etc.. It's too soon to speculate on the max range but easy to expect a baseline on what a bigger and slightly heavier Model S is capable of.

75kWh battery max, at the moment, is what is planned so we at least know that and that's where I'm putting my $$ first. I'd love to have AWD but would I miss it? Probably not but maybe the delay will work in our favour given Canada is usually 3-6 months behind US deliveries anyhow and I'd like to get my car ASAP.

Everything else will fall into place once we know more.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

All true, @TrevP . All @Dan Detweiler was saying though was, if a 75 kWh MS gets 265 miles today, is it wild to imagine 300 with:


TrevP said:


> (...) any efficiencies in inverter technology, weight savings, tire resistance changes etc..
> (...)


In the end, simple maths force me to point out that 300/265 means +13%... does not strike me as 'too optimistic'...


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

arnis said:


> Bold part is incorrect presumption. We know that Model 3 will use 2170 cells. We already saw Model 3 being driven.
> Therefore 2170 cells are being used in production candidates ATM.
> Designing pre-production Model 3 battery pack with 18650 cells is extremely extensive work. It did not happen and never will.


As @Michael Russo stated I'm talking about something you could go out and buy today. That is the only way to get your hands on the 2170. I'm simply pointing out Elon could be playing with words as he's done in the past but I'd expect he is being straight forward when hes saying the 2170 pack in the 3 will be 75kwh or under.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

Something tells me Elon had this little tweetstorm planned given the amount of information he delivered yesterday and the imminent demise of the Model S 60 config. Grab one while you can if you want dual motors!


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

TrevP said:


> Something tells me Elon had this little tweetstorm planned given the amount of information he delivered yesterday and the imminent demise of the Model S 60 config. Grab one while you can if you want dual motors!


he also confirmed to one commenter that he was en route to Cape Canaveral, so had to sit still on a plane. haha. 
Does EM fly commercial? to be the passenger next to him on a 3 hour flight and the stories you would have ... would he be the head down blocking out everyone around sort of traveler, or the chatty seat neighbor?


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> he also confirmed to one commenter that he was en route to Cape Canaveral, so had to sit still on a plane. haha.
> Does EM fly commercial? to be the passenger next to him on a 3 hour flight and the stories you would have ... would he be the head down blocking out everyone around sort of traveler, or the chatty seat neighbor?


I have money on polite, quiet and withdrawn until you engaged him in a conversation worthy of his intellect, say AI, climate research, effects of nozzle design on specific impulse... You would then have to hold on for the ride and hope to keep up!


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

TrevP said:


> (...) the imminent demise of the Model S 60 config. Grab one while you can if you want dual motors!


And if you can afford it...


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

MelindaV said:


> he also confirmed to one commenter that he was en route to Cape Canaveral, so had to sit still on a plane. haha.
> Does EM fly commercial? to be the passenger next to him on a 3 hour flight and the stories you would have ... would he be the head down blocking out everyone around sort of traveler, or the chatty seat neighbor?


Elon has a private jet

http://www.private-jet-fan.com/elon-musk-jet.html


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

TrevP said:


> Elon has a private jet
> 
> http://www.private-jet-fan.com/elon-musk-jet.html


Wow.


----------



## Bobby Garrity (Jan 22, 2017)

Don't think for a second that "current" refers to 18650s. We've known from the beginning that the 3 will use 2170s. Assume that it will be quite a while (years) until we see capacities above 75kWh.

I am a bit disappointed in this. I was hoping for a larger battery pack, but I suppose 75kWh on the smaller 3 will be enough.


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

Very nice article from Teslarati which adds wind to the sail of the 300+ miles range for the 75 kWH powered Model ≡:
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-battery-options-to-top-out-at-75-kwh-300-mi-range/amp

By the way, if the writer's consumption estimate of 0.242 kWh/mile is correct, and taking into account what I'd take as a confirmation (having faith myself... ) that the Bolt range of 238 miles will be beaten,

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845331893176324096this would point to the lower battery size to be 60 kWh (hence 248 miles of range...) as a 55 kWh would only yield 227 miles... _Interesting_... and I sure hope accurate!! :rainbow:


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Michael Russo said:


> Very nice article from Teslarati which adds wind to the sail of the 300+ miles range for the 75 kWH powered Model ≡:
> http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-battery-options-to-top-out-at-75-kwh-300-mi-range/amp
> 
> By the way, if the writer's consumption estimate of 0.242 kWh/mile is correct, and taking into account what I'd take as a confirmation (having faith myself... ) that the Bolt range of 238 miles will be beaten,
> ...


I saw that article too and was initially encouraged, but I'm somewhat skeptical of that 0.242 number. That suggests a 20% improvement in efficiency for a car that at best be 10% lighter and maaaayyyybe 15% lower drag. I'm sure better inverters etc. will help, but that's still a tall order. I'd like to know how the author arrived at that figure.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2017)

Michael Russo said:


> this would point to the lower battery size to be 60 kWh (hence 248 miles of range...) as a 55 kWh would only yield 227 miles... _Interesting_... and I sure hope accurate!


If the large battery will be 75kWh (advertised) and it will have 8 modules inside (50V each). I see no way to make a 60kWh pack by removing any number of modules. If we remove 2 modules capacity drops to 56.25kWh. The other way would be designing
a different module that has same number of cells in series but less in parallel. 
Can anyone estimate+sketch the module design possibilities with single/dual coolant loops per module, also 55kWh pack with same
nominal voltage as 75kWh pack?


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

On the S &X smaller batteries, they have blank cells as fillers within the packs - not one fewer pack so would presume it would be similar with the new battery pack configuration.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 5, 2016)

I think if you want 300 miles of range, you're going to need to buy a Model S. 

Look at the overall theme of Elon's tweets yesterday (covered in detail on tomorrow's episode of my podcast; or grab it now if you're a Patreon backer): he was careful to put Model 3 in its place (not in a bad way!), which is BELOW the Model S on the Tesla product hierarchy. 

75kWh in a 3 will likely do better than the 265-mile Model S with the same size pack, but I don't think it's going to hit 300. At best, it might approach 285-290 with the future dual-motor variant. IMO, of course!


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2017)

Yes. I think getting Model 3 above 300 miles will be a psychological trick in US that boosts sales IF production
capacity starts to surpass demand. Therefore keeping it slightly below 300 mile mark and then getting
EPA rating above 300 will be a nice hack later on. Same trick can be done in kilometers.
It appears realistic (EPA) range for 55pack will be 350km and 450km for 75pack. While 10 extra kWh will
tip the 500km mark (310-320miles). That would be appropriate for year 2020.

Right now there is absolutely no reason. Queue is longer than a year:tearsofjoy:


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Ryan said:


> I think if you want 300 miles of range, you're going to need to buy a Model S.
> 
> Look at the overall theme of Elon's tweets yesterday (covered in detail on tomorrow's episode of my podcast; or grab it now if you're a Patreon backer): he was careful to put Model 3 in its place (not in a bad way!), which is BELOW the Model S on the Tesla product hierarchy.
> 
> 75kWh in a 3 will likely do better than the 265-mile Model S with the same size pack, but I don't think it's going to hit 300. At best, it might approach 285-290 with the future dual-motor variant. IMO, of course!


Yep. Although Elon did categorically state that 75 kWh was the limit given current battery tech and the 3's smaller chassis, I still smell hierarchy protection here. For this to be true it would mean the 3 has 25% less available battery space in its chassis. Being that the 3's length, width and wheelbase all seem to fall in around 10% smaller it doesn't jive. And that's not accounting for the density improvement that the new 2170 cells should offer, if we do then that means the available space must even be less. I see only three possibilities, however they are not mutually exclusive and might in some fashion when combined together be the truth:

1. The various current estimates available on the 3's dimensions are inaccurate.
2. The available battery space within the wheelbase as we know it in the S design is being shared with a significant amount of some other component(s) on the 3.
3. They are purposely sandbagging the 3's max capacity to protect the S.


----------



## John (Apr 16, 2016)

Being guilty of this myself in the past, I would gently observe that folks here, being enthusiasts, which is a good thing, have a tendency to second-guess everything in a very optimistic way (which I suppose is better than being negative and pessimistic), rather than take it at face value. 

For instance, Elon said 75 kWh would be max battery. That's in line with his previous statement ("You can't fit 100 kWh in a Model 3.") After his first comment, some people instantly assumed that the max would be 90 kWh, when in fact we now know it's most likely 70 or 75 kWh (however they rate it).


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2017)

Exactly. I even mentioned, that IF M3 was near 100kWh the tweet would be different, something like:
"You can't fit 100 kWh in a Model 3 right now" or "Maybe later, right now slightly less". 
But what he did say is that 100kWh will not fit for foreseeable future (possibly M3 gen1 be discontinued
before tech goes that far (from 75kWh to 100kWh). Even if tech goes that far M3 might not be the
vehicle class (budget) that can take newest tech as soon as it is available (cost + production capacity).

In addition Elon mentioned that Tesla is not planning to put more than 100kWh on a sedans in the near future.
Therefore they don't plan to offer anything above 80-85kWh on M3 in the near future.

The fact that other manufacturers catch up 200mile mark doesn't mean Tesla must do 300 as a minimum.
And when others finally reach 300 miles it doesn't mean Tesla should do 400. Or even offer 400.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

I'd like offer an observation that I take from his latest information about the positioning and less features compared to Model S.

To me it indicates Tesla will indeed be pursuing options pricing on the Model 3 to keep it affordable and not encroach too much on Model S. They're starting with simpler configs to help ramp up the production speed. This also has a good size-effect in that the media will be less likely to harp on them for promising Model 3 @ $35K US but offering higher end configs right from the start. I"m sure this is not really intentional on their end but it helps.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/845279423238590464


----------



## Watts4me (Nov 25, 2016)

I was looking order a dual motor M3. My concern is that the 7500 incentive will be gone. I know Elon stated that it wouldn't. I just feel it will be gone buy the time I receive my car.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Watts4me said:


> I was looking order a dual motor M3. My concern is that the 7500 incentive will be gone. I know Elon stated that it wouldn't. I just feel it will be gone buy the time I receive my car.


Another statement he made a while back was that Model 3 was sold out for the first year, meaning that 350,000 to 400,000 cars could be handled in the first year. May or may not happen but remember the $7500 tax credit is good for two quarters AFTER they reach 200,000 domestic deliveries. They can deliver a whole bunch of cars at full ramp up in two quarters. Unless you reserved within the last month or so, my money would be on you being ok.

Dan


----------



## samson (Mar 8, 2017)

TrevP said:


> I'd like offer an observation that I take from his latest information about the positioning and less features compared to Model S.
> 
> To me it indicates Tesla will indeed be pursuing options pricing on the Model 3 to keep it affordable and not encroach too much on Model S. They're starting with simpler configs to help ramp up the production speed. This also has a good size-effect in that the media will be less likely to harp on them for promising Model 3 @ $35K US but offering higher end configs right from the start. I"m sure this is not really intentional on their end but it helps.
> 
> ...


TREV,

Do you think that Tesla will fulfill RWD Model 3 orders across all the US states and possibly Canada if they choose to order RWD? or is it only RWD orders from Cali and some neighboring states.

The way I see it is if the RWD Model 3 max battery option can be optioned such that it is on par with a BMW m3 like acceleration people can actual order a Tesla Model 3 RWD. You get it much earlier, have dibs on FED TAX credit and its like owning a RWD sports car or muscle car right.

Thats my dilemma with this situation. I can have a RWD model 3 and treat it like a BMW m3 or wait for a AWD P75DL and treat it like a NISSAN GTR.

Either way it will be fun to drive only difference is one is expensive and fun all year long and the other a bit less expensive and you can have fun all year long less winter and snow condition.

What do you guys think


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

I'm not privy to inside production information other than what was relayed to me and I had reported on a few weeks ago (production numbers and RWD first).

I say we have to take Elon's word on this that simple configs (not the battery) go out first to employees and perhaps some existing Model S owners first in California. This way they can quickly identify early issues and deal with them without a potentially disastrous recall. It's smart but unique to them.

I'm of the belief that they will put all the configs in the configurator when it opens regardless if they are indeed in production. I say this because when Model X went online it had the subzero weather package and the 5 seat options even though they were not available right away. Bonnie Norman had Model X reservation #2 and despite already owning a Roadster and being well known at Tesla and big supporter she did not get hers for months because she ordered it with the cold weather package.

I'm sure Tesla will put the dual motor variants into production as soon as they feel the line is able to handle it. Elon is playing a bit of CYA with his comment so let's see how it plays out. Remember, this is a simpler car to make so dual motor shouldn't be too long provided they indeed ramp up quickly and early RWD orders are delivered and problem free. The other factor here is that the motors and drive trains are now made at the Gigafactory so maybe the production line there needs further expansion and won't be ready for a few more months???

That's just my take on it. It is critical for Tesla to have a very reliable car here. The whole company is riding on it and while they want to start production ASAP they also value quality over quantity. Elon has been pretty vocal about that, especially during the Model X ramp.


----------



## John (Apr 16, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> remember the $7500 tax credit is good for two quarters AFTER they reach 200,000 domestic deliveries.
> Dan


Well, technically you get ONE quarter after the quarter in which they reach 200,000 United States vehicles. So the goal would be to sell the 199,999th on Dec 31, 2017 so that the entire next TWO quarters would allow United States buyers to claim the full $7,500 tax deduction.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

John said:


> Well, technically you get ONE quarter after the quarter in which they reach 200,000 United States vehicles. So the goal would be to sell the 199,999th on Dec 31, 2017 so that the entire next TWO quarters would allow United States buyers to claim the full $7,500 tax deduction.


I stand corrected. You are right on that, thanks.

Dan


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

My guess:

Model ☰ 60 ____ 225-to-250 miles
Model ☰ 60D ___ 235-to-262 miles
Model ☰ 75 ____ 269-to-299 miles
Model ☰ 75D ___ 280-to-311 miles​


----------



## Mark C (Aug 26, 2016)

I'm still looking forward to how this plays out. IIRC, it was "less than 60" for the standard issue pack and the maximum that could fit in a Model 3 based on size with the old style battery was 75. 

IF the spread between the standard and optional battery pack is my version of affordable though, I may ante up for the bigger battery. The charging infrastructure is not as robust in the Southeast as it is in the Southwest or on the coasts, plus I plan to keep it a very long time.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2017)

Mark C said:


> the maximum that could fit in a Model 3 based on size with the old style battery was 75


All true, but there is no old and new style battery (you mean 18650?) for Model 3. All production prototypes run on 2170.

I would take 55kWh as it is enough for me. But if upgrade costs just 3000-4000€ I might consider upgrading.


----------



## bluesolarflare (Apr 8, 2016)

My guess:

Model☰55 215 Miles
Model☰55D 224 Miles
Model☰70 250 Miles
Model☰70D 260 Miles


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Another thing to remember about battery size is that the larger battery will supercharge much faster to a certain level than the smaller battery. In other words if you have a 55 and a 75 sitting at a supercharger stall both near 0%, the 75 will get to 50 kW much faster than the 55 due to the severe slowing of charging speed over the last 15-20% of the battery capacity.

Dan


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2017)

Dan Detweiler said:


> Another thing to remember about battery size is that the larger battery will supercharge much faster to a certain level than the smaller battery. In other words if you have a 55 and a 75 sitting at a supercharger stall both near 0%, the 75 will get to 50 kW much faster than the 55 due to the severe slowing of charging speed over the last 15-20% of the battery capacity.
> 
> Dan


That actually heavily depends on chemistry. Ioniq has 28kWh pack and charges it at full speed, 70kW, up to 80%.Which is way faster than Tesla. Imagine 55kWh pack charging at 140kW from dead to 3/4. Actually 120kW, as that is the limit. 75kWh pack would make almost no difference if it would max out SC same way.


----------



## NRG4All (Mar 28, 2017)

"The shorter wheelbase only allows for a 75 kWh pack in Model 3 at current cell/module energy densities". Elon's tweet makes me wonder. Do the prototypes have the 18650 cells or do they have the 21700 cells? I know that the production version will have the new cell, but were they available for the prototypes? So what "current cell" is he talking about? If the prototypes have the old cell, then with the increased density of the new cells, would it be possible to exceed the 75 kWh limit?


----------



## Bobby Garrity (Jan 22, 2017)

NRG4All said:


> "The shorter wheelbase only allows for a 75 kWh pack in Model 3 at current cell/module energy densities". Elon's tweet makes me wonder. Do the prototypes have the 18650 cells or do they have the 21700 cells? I know that the production version will have the new cell, but were they available for the prototypes? So what "current cell" is he talking about? If the prototypes have the old cell, then with the increased density of the new cells, would it be possible to exceed the 75 kWh limit?


The release candidates certainly have the 2170s, and it is safe to assume that he meant the 2170s when he said "current".


----------



## 3Victoria (Jul 17, 2016)

NRG4All said:


> "The shorter wheelbase only allows for a 75 kWh pack in Model 3 at current cell/module energy densities".


The S also has a double layer of cells in one part of its pack, and that is not possible with the 3.


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

If one presumes there are 8 modules within the Model 3 battery pack...

And that the 75 kWh amount is the usable total of the highest capacity version...

So each module would contain around 9.375 kWh of usable energy...

Then a version of the car using only six modules would have a 56.25 kWh usable capacity, satisfying the_ 'less than 60 kWh'_ reports.

And if the car manages only 4 miles per kWh in EPA testing, that would make for a minimum range of 225 miles officially.

At as little an efficiency rating as 3.6 miles per kWh you could still break the 200 mile barrier, though just barely, at ~203 miles range, officially.

Which just happens to be right at 90% of 225 miles.

I don't really trust EPA testing procedures. I feel they are unfairly biased in favor of ICE vehicles in general, and plug-in hybrids from traditional automobile manufacturers in particular. I find it interesting that when Tesla has announced range goals for their cars ahead of time, the EPA results are seemingly always only 90% of that amount or lower. It may not be a conspiracy, but it sure smells fishy.

This is why I believe it is necessary that the base capacity of the Model 3 be no less than 60 kWh, just to make sure that Tesla will be above their goal at 90%.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2017)

arnis said:


> Yes. *I think getting Model 3 above 300 miles will be a psychological trick in US *that boosts sales IF production
> capacity starts to surpass demand. Therefore keeping it slightly below 300 mile mark and then getting
> EPA rating above 300 will be a nice hack later on. Same trick can be done in kilometers.
> It appears realistic (EPA) range for 55pack will be 350km and 450km for 75pack. While 10 extra kWh will
> ...


I would like to quote myself from March.
My estimations. 350km (217mi) was dead on. Though I expected 500km (310mi) to appear slightly later, Tesla did it right away.
How nice from them.


----------



## Peter Egan (Jun 6, 2017)

arnis said:


> I would like to quote myself from March.
> My estimations. 350km (217mi) was dead on. Though I expected 500km (310mi) to appear slightly later, Tesla did it right away.
> How nice from them.


If we multiply M3 kerb weight by the range for the standard and long range versions of the M3, we find the long range has 1.51 times the tonne-miles of the std battery version. Therefore battery sizes are likely to be 75 kWh and 50 kWh. This means each sub-module of the battery will vary in this ratio.

If we compare the Tesla to the Bolt EV on Tonne-miles, the Tesla M3 is 11% more efficient than the Bolt EV.

We know the weight difference between the std and long range vehicles is 120 kg. This means 25 kWh of sub-modules weighs 120 kg. There are 3 modules. Therefore - for the large battery, each module has 120 kg of sub-modules inside it, and for the std battery, each module has 80 kg of submodules inside it. The nominal voltage of each module should be 115 V - std voltage in the US. With 3 modules in series we get the full nominal 345 Volts for Tesla powertrain. I suspect each 2170 cell has a capacity of ~20 Wh. For the larger battery this would mean, 3744 cells (39P,96S) and ~74.88 kW. For the standard battery, we should expect 2496 cells (26P, 96S). To achieve the above, the weight of submodules (including cooling and all other components) must be 4.8 grams/Wh. The cells are likely to be 3.75 grams to 4 grams per Wh - 75 to 80 grams per cell.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2017)

120kg is no good for lifting therefore pretty much impossible to handle without special lifting devices.
EU accepted norm is 30kg per healthy male if done frequently (multiple lifts hourly).
Or double if done by two people. 

115V is some AC voltage, between neutral and phase. AC is much more dangerous than DC as well.
Completely incomparable. 

BTW, we saw some battery design sketches months ago.
Also it is hard to wire things up in case of 3-4 modules. Including plumbing.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

The drivetrain electronics system and nominal battery voltage is 400VDC.
And DC is MUCH more dangerous than AC at the same voltages. AC turns off 120 times a second. DC never turns off, you stay frozen and die at high voltages.


----------



## Peter Egan (Jun 6, 2017)

arnis said:


> 120kg is no good for lifting therefore pretty much impossible to handle without special lifting devices.
> EU accepted norm is 30kg per healthy male if done frequently (multiple lifts hourly).
> Or double if done by two people.
> 
> ...


I was surprised to read only 3 modules. But from a very few other facts, like weight difference caused by the battery, tonne.mile range, Tesla battery architecture, we can calculate details of the battery. 120 kg of submodules in a module is a surprise to me. There may also be a module casing ((the batteries in the MS/MX don't have module casing - just a pan in the battery case. Maybe there is an MS/MX style battery case but it would need a complex tool to fix it to the base of the car given all the screws for the MS/MX battery. 3 longitudinal modules with the their own case would be far faster to install if there is a battery cover on the underside of the car. A cover would permit thermal insulation under the battery. A machine to lift 140 kg can be much smaller than one lifting 450 kg.


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

So...I am no electrical genius but I am trying to do some math on this and I think I must be missing something. I get an efficiency of 273 watts per mile, times a range of 310 miles = 84,630 watt capacity which is 84.63 kilowatts. That's certainly not 75 which is the assumption on the capacity. 

What stupid error am I making? (Like I said, I teach music for a living.  )

Dan


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

I'm happy to help out but I am not clear on what you are trying to calculate, and what variables you know for fact and which you are assuming.

If we take Elon at his word that max battery is 75kWh and also assume that there is no artificial overhead in the 310mi rating (I bet there is), then the 220mi pack comes to 53.2kWh. 
If we assume the 75kWh pack can actually do 325 mi, then the math for the smaller pack comes in at 50.7 for 220.
My bet is that they are 55 and 75kWh packs.


----------



## TesLou (Aug 20, 2016)

This is an odd question perhaps, but does anyone know for sure if the smaller battery was used in any of the test cars? I mean, is it possible that when the smaller packs actually begin production they might produce more range than predicted?


----------



## Model34mePlease (Jun 3, 2017)

Dan Detweiler said:


> So...I am no electrical genius but I am trying to do some math on this and I think I must be missing something. I get an efficiency of 273 watts per mile, times a range of 310 miles = 84,630 watt capacity which is 84.63 kilowatts. That's certainly not 75 which is the assumption on the capacity.
> 
> What stupid error am I making? (Like I said, I teach music for a living.  )
> 
> Dan


I think you mean 237 watts-hours per mile. 237 watt-hours per mile * 310 miles = 73.470kwh


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

JWardell said:


> The drivetrain electronics system and nominal battery voltage is 400VDC.
> And DC is MUCH more dangerous than AC at the same voltages. AC turns off 120 times a second. DC never turns off, you stay frozen and die at high voltages.


Oh boy you are so wrong 
AC is dangerous, DC is way less. Though DC is way more dangerous for circuit breakers etc.





And 400V nominal battery voltage is on the bigger pack. Smaller pack should be less. Though it also might not be on M3 (on S/X it is).


----------



## Dan Detweiler (Apr 8, 2016)

Model34mePlease said:


> I think you mean 237 watts-hours per mile. 237 watt-hours per mile * 310 miles = 73.470kwh


OK, I did the math again and I must have hit the wrong buttons the first time around. Thanks

Dan


----------



## Peter Egan (Jun 6, 2017)

Dan Detweiler said:


> So...I am no electrical genius but I am trying to do some math on this and I think I must be missing something. I get an efficiency of 273 watts per mile, times a range of 310 miles = 84,630 watt capacity which is 84.63 kilowatts. That's certainly not 75 which is the assumption on the capacity.
> 
> What stupid error am I making? (Like I said, I teach music for a living.  )
> 
> Dan


Some of the efficiency figures don't seem to work with global figures. We need more data to work out what the actual efficiency is.


----------



## Badback (Apr 7, 2016)

Dan Detweiler said:


> So...I am no electrical genius but I am trying to do some math on this and I think I must be missing something. I get an efficiency of 273 watts per mile, times a range of 310 miles = 84,630 watt capacity which is 84.63 kilowatts. That's certainly not 75 which is the assumption on the capacity.
> 
> What stupid error am I making? (Like I said, I teach music for a living.  )
> 
> Dan


It's watt-hours per mile. And AFAIK, the number is 237. That's 73.47kWH.


----------



## Audrey (Aug 2, 2017)

Maybe I'm missing something, but functionally every car is going to perform slightly differently in terms of battery and range. So whether the battery is 70 kWH or 100 does not functionally matter. Moving away from the battery size specifics frees up Tesla to produce batteries at whatever size is most efficient operationally and financially. What most buyers will comprehend is range in miles anyway, so it's the right marketing move too. There's no ambiguity for the mass market.


----------

