# One Battery Pack Justification



## patrick0101 (Apr 4, 2016)

What do you think about the idea that Tesla could/should only make the large battery pack (70 or 75 kWh) and then SW limit it for the smaller pack?

*One Battery Pack Justification*


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

patrick0101 said:


> What do you think about the idea that Tesla could/should only make the large battery pack (70 or 75 kWh) and then SW limit it for the smaller pack?
> 
> *One Battery Pack Justification*


It is certainly a perspective, and some of the arguments do kind of hold water, yet the view amongst those here _who know 'stuff' _(which does not include me, of course... ) is that, with the relative cost of batteries, this otherwise attractive option is unlikely to materialize...

Does the new 2170 change that, and to what extent? Mystery... 

In the end, we will only know _for sure_ in a couple of months...


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Batteries are still the most expensive part of a car, even with all of the cost reductions Tesla is implementing. They won't be able to do software limited batteries & still make good profits (if any at all) on a base $35,000 Model 3.

As another indicator, Tesla has done away with the software-limited battery option for Model S. It appears to have been a temporary, stop-gap measure to offer a vehicle option at a lower price point.


----------



## patrick0101 (Apr 4, 2016)

garsh said:


> Batteries are still the most expensive part of a car...


I agree. The math only works if you can assume that a significant percentage of people will upgrade, which is, of course, unknown for Model 3 buyers.


----------



## patrick0101 (Apr 4, 2016)

Michael Russo said:


> the view amongst those here _who know 'stuff' _(which does not include me


If you ever figure out how to join that club, please let me know


----------



## BigBri (Jul 16, 2016)

I don't think we'll see that again. You can't sell someone a house and lock a bedroom door hoping they will eventually want it and pay a premium. Tesla could do it on the S as its a lower volume car. With something like the Model3 we'd be talking about unused cells that could potentially make complete packs for thousands and thousands of cars. Even with a Gigafactory or two chances are the batteries will continue to be the bottleneck in production. It's why I suspect we'll not be seeing much bigger then 100KWH packs for a long time. Even when it's possible they'd rather get 3 cars with smaller packs on the road then 1 with a huge one.


----------



## Bobby Garrity (Jan 22, 2017)

I think it makes more sense to software lock one option out of four than one option out of two. Not making the 60kWh packs on the S probably helped simplified production, but for the 3, production will be plenty simplified if they are only making two packs across 500,000 cars a year.


----------



## 3Victoria (Jul 17, 2016)

Guess is that the latest upgrade from 60-->75 is $133/kWh, so 55-->75 would be on order of $2500. It would seem that that might allow locked 55s.


----------



## AEDennis (Apr 10, 2016)

Never say never...

Tesla first produced this option with the 40/60 Model S... With the 40 disappearing quickly...

They did it again with 70/75 and 60/75... I think they may also have done this with some P85D/P90D... But unsure.

Would they do it for the 3? I would bet against it, but then again, I've lost many bets before, so...


----------



## Badback (Apr 7, 2016)

A software locked larger battery reduces range as you still have the weight of the larger battery without the energy.


----------



## TrevP (Oct 20, 2015)

There's nothing stopping them other than profit margins. You can do this on a high priced Model S but in a car at half the cost...


----------



## 3Victoria (Jul 17, 2016)

Badback said:


> A software locked larger battery reduces range as you still have the weight of the larger battery without the energy.


Yes, that is true. However, there are compensating advantages: can charge to 100% without detriment; faster charging; and can upgrade over the air when wanted.


----------



## Topher (May 11, 2016)

garsh said:


> As another indicator, Tesla has done away with the software-limited battery option for Model S. It appears to have been a temporary, stop-gap measure to offer a vehicle option at a lower price point.


More evidence is that they are fire sale pricing the upgrade on the 60S. They could want the whole mess off their books.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

You have to take a step back and think about the clientele difference.

On a Model 3, there are not going to be many people that have cash sitting around to add range to their car let alone adding auto pilot after the fact.

I think this is an interesting, but bad play on the 3.

Presumably most will finance or lease and by that logic, most that want a bigger battery will have it factored into their lease or financing rather than paying for it outright down the road.

I know this thread isn't about autopilot, but I do see that differently as an evolving software over time. There is a play for a subscription type model as a possibility. I don't see that as a remote possibility for a battery though.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2017)

I think it is a bad idea. Many reasons are already listed.
I'll add one more: SW limited pack still weights the same. Therefore
with 55kWh limited 75kWh pack range will be smaller than with 55kWh pack.
Overall small pack demand will be similar to big pack demand.

I think they will have 8 and 6 module variations for Model 3.
If they are clever, they will have modules wired to be 50V 
and others slightly higher (more cells in series per module).


----------



## Red Sage (Dec 4, 2016)

I've argued in favor of both positions. At this point, I'm really concerned both by the report that Model ☰ would offer a less than 60 kWh capacity version, and that Elon Musk said the maximum would be 75 kWh. I'm hoping for a surprise that offers... more.


----------

