# 100 KW battery option for Model 3; Yes Please!



## Mike

My dream battery option for the Model 3 is a 100 KW battery.

Now that the modules using the "old battery" have hit 100 KW for Model S & X, is there any reason why the new 2170s cannot be assembled into a Model 3 in a format to provide 100 KW?


----------



## TrevP

I don't see any reason why not at this time however we still don't know the internal layout or the cell count in the Model 3 modules. The only thing I know is the battery has 8 modules.


----------



## Daliman

The Model III pack will have to be somewhat smaller simply because of the physical space available for the battery pack, although Motor Trends estimate was only about 6%. If that is the case a pack of more than 90 Kwh should be possible even using the existing technology. Allowing the maximum space for the pack would be another reason for shifting the wheels as far out as possible. Tesla seems to have gotten much more efficient at packing the current cells together in the modules and proving sufficient cooling to allow the pack to function at peak performance. 

As there isn't information about the new cells capacity or how they form modules we will be guessing until the final reveal. However if JB and his team can't improve the performance by at least 10 % to allow 100 Kwh to be packed into the space available I will eat my shoe. We do know the standard pack giving at least 345 km range will be less than 60 kw. I suspect that is just a matter of keeping the base price under 35,000 and that it will really be a 75 Kw pack that most just pay to upgrade. While there doesn't seem to be a reason why 100 Kwh is not physically possible it might not be something that is available at least at first given the cost of upgrading by 40 Kw. I too would love the range and the physical attributes of the car rather than the software are what I intend to prioritize if i have to make that choice.


----------



## Mike

I guess I'm not the only one that would "pay some money" for a 500+ km EPA range on the future Model 3. 

After seeing the comments by Elon Musk (para phrasing here) about 100 KW being the theoretical ceiling using the current cells and any further capacity range must wait for the new cells, I am eternally hopeful that the new cells will (by virtue of each one having that much more volumetric capacity) allow an option on the Model 3 for ranges exceeding 500 Kms.


----------



## Badbot

the MS has 16 battery modules. with 18700 cells
the M3 has 8 battery modules. with 2170 cells so in stead of 50KW I think 70-75 will be the max


----------



## Mike

Badbot said:


> the MS has 16 battery modules. with 18700 cells
> the M3 has 8 battery modules. with 2170 cells so in stead of 50KW I think 70-75 will be the max


Looks like you are correct. I just need to work it out, longhand.......

I figured the volume difference between the old cell (18mm x 65mm) and the new cell (21mm x 70mm) using this online calculator:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/object_volume_cylinder_tank.htm
18mm x 65mm = volume of 16540
21mm x 70mm = volume of 24245
The volume difference factor is 1.466.

Assuming no better chemistry, but utilizing all the other 100 KW Model S battery techniques, those eight battery modules (with new 2170 cells for a factor of 1.466:1) would notionally become 11.73 "old modules".

11.73 "old modules" divided by 16 "old modules" works out to 73.3%.

So, you are bang on, I worked it out to 73.3 KW capacity (assuming no chemistry improvements).

With the smaller size and better Cd, I wonder what a 73 KW battery pack will give the Model 3, range wise?


----------



## Skione65

100Khw is my dream battery as well for the range it would provide. However....pricing remains key. The $20,000k upgrade price currently on the S for this to me is LUDICROUS!!! 

Ski


----------



## Topher

Mike said:


> My dream battery option for the Model 3 is a 100 KW battery.


It really isn't. You may want 100*kWh*.



Daliman said:


> We do know the standard pack giving at least 345 km range will be less than 60 kw. I suspect that is just a matter of keeping the base price under 35,000 and that it will really be a 75 Kw pack that most just pay to upgrade.


That makes no sense, if they are keeping the pack at 60*kWh* to keep the price down, then it makes no sense to not actually put in 60 kWh, but rather 75 kWh.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Mike

Topher said:


> It really isn't. You may want 100*kWh*.


Yes, that is what I meant, indirectly.

What I really want is the 300 mile EPA range. Let's hope that is an optional upgrade in the Model 3.


----------



## TrevP

Mike said:


> Looks like you are correct. I just need to work it out, longhand.......
> 
> I figured the volume difference between the old cell (18mm x 65mm) and the new cell (21mm x 70mm) using this online calculator:
> http://www.onlineconversion.com/object_volume_cylinder_tank.htm
> 18mm x 65mm = volume of 16540
> 21mm x 70mm = volume of 24245
> The volume difference factor is 1.466.
> 
> Assuming no better chemistry, but utilizing all the other 100 KW Model S battery techniques, those eight battery modules (with new 2170 cells for a factor of 1.466:1) would notionally become 11.73 "old modules".
> 
> 11.73 "old modules" divided by 16 "old modules" works out to 73.3%.
> 
> So, you are bang on, I worked it out to 73.3 KW capacity (assuming no chemistry improvements).
> 
> With the smaller size and better Cd, I wonder what a 73 KW battery pack will give the Model 3, range wise?


You have to be careful with raw volume calculations of the cells alone. There's a lot more going on with the module than just cell volume. You have to account for cooling lines etc.. We still don't know the actual layout of the cells in the Model 3 pack yet. Then it gets more complicated given the new 100kWh Model S pack that has completely new modules in it with more cells and new cooling which means a big change in the cell layout and an increase in the count.

I've been looking over the reveal video very closely again and I can see what appears to be 8 cells wide X 16 cells deep or so in each of the 8 modules. It's very difficult to get an actual count because even in the HD video it's hard to make out the cells from just looking at the shadows. Stills put into Photoshop and tweaking contrast helps a bit but it's still murky.

Then you have to take into account that Tesla might not have shown the true layout in the CAD projection since it's still a trade secret.

As for the chemistry, JB confirmed the 2170 will have new chemistry. What I don't know is if this is the same as the cells used in the 18650 put into the 90/100kWh pack or something entirely different just for the new cell.


----------



## Topher

Mike said:


> Yes, that is what I meant, indirectly.
> 
> What I really want is the 300 mile EPA range. Let's hope that is an optional upgrade in the Model 3.


If the base Model ≡ gets 215 EPA miles, and comes with 60 *kWh* that means 83 *kWh* for 300 Miles.
If they get that with 55 *kWh*, that means 76* kWh*.

Either way, 40% increase from base to extended range version seems reasonable.

Thank you kindly


----------



## Mike

Topher said:


> If the base Model ≡ gets 215 EPA miles, and comes with 60 *kWh* that means 83 *kWh* for 300 Miles.
> If they get that with 55 *kWh*, that means 76* kWh*.


That looks right. Here's hoping Tesla can make it happen.


----------



## Rick59

What makes the Tesla 100 kWh battery so different?
http://www.teslarati.com/what-makes-tesla-100-kwh-battery-so-different/










Sent from my iPad


----------



## Mike

Rick59 said:


> What makes the Tesla 100 kWh battery so different?
> http://www.teslarati.com/what-makes-tesla-100-kwh-battery-so-different/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad


I wonder if the technique is like my old coolatron plug in cooler. Only moving part is a little fan, but magically brings down the temp of products. .....and if run in reverse (polarity of the plug), it warms things up. It could pre heat a cold battery......


----------



## Pinewold

Hoping for 55kWhr to 75kWhr upgrade with a little less weight due to new better cells so the net result is 300+ mile car. If ey can do it with fewer batteries, they can make more cars. On the plus side would really like to see 240 as minimum and 320 miles stretch goal.


----------



## Red Sage

I figure a Tesla Model ☰ P135D Coupe with Falcon Wing Doors could be available sometime around 2019. That would be the car for me. EPA rated range would be roughly 510 miles or so. 0-60 MPH in so dang fast adult underwear are part of the required wardrobe. 1/4 mile in 9.somethingeth at 145+ MPH. 70-to-0 MPH emergency braking in like 94 feet. Skidpad rating of 1.03g. Top speed of no less than 186 MPH _(300 KPH)_. Nürburgring runs under 7:30 per lap for multiple laps. On FULL Autopilot. Yeah. That sound you hear is not the falling of rain, but of tears at M, RUF, and AMG. What? A man can dream.

But yeah... 100 kWh would certainly do just fine to start. I'm sure one of my Nephews would be willing to take the old thing off my hands when a 120 kWh or 135 kWh version came out. Right?


----------



## Badback

I am sure that if Elon has his way, we will be able to drive our ≡s into a Hyperloop pod an be sent from LA to NYC at 800 MPH, and get fully charged in the process. Followed shortly by ferry service to the Mars colony for lunch overlooking the Victoria crater.


----------



## Michael Russo

Badback said:


> I am sure that if Elon has his way, we will be able to drive our ≡s into a Hyperloop pod an be sent from LA to NYC at 800 MPH, and get fully charged in the process. Followed shortly by ferry service to the Mars colony for lunch overlooking the Victoria crater.


@Badback , don't see any reason, if this were to happen, why you could not gratify us with at least a couple of BEV of your own making by then!!


----------



## Daliman

Through a tunnel drilled by Boring inc. I would be very surprised if 235 isnt standard and 320 isnt an upper level option. Hopefully we will find out something more about the new cells next week.


----------



## Michael Russo

Agree, @Daliman, though an even more radical (Elon's chosen adjective for Model ≡...) target (wish?) would be 250 miles base EPA rated range, i.e. a nice round number (also interesting just - 2.3 km over the other magical threshold of 400 km!) as well as almost 5% _higher than the Bolt_ for the fun of it... 
Though I'd settle for 240 miles (386 km), what the heck..!


----------



## Topher

Mike said:


> My dream battery option for the Model 3 is a 100 KW battery.


Actually I am pretty sure your dream battery option is 100kW*h*. 



> Now that the modules using the "old battery" have hit 100 KW for Model S & X, is there any reason why the new 2170s cannot be assembled into a Model 3 in a format to provide 100 KW?


If the area for the pack is proportional to the footprint of the respective cars, the Model 3 might be 81% the size of the Model S (Wikipedia's numbers), and the 2170 cells are 7% taller, giving 87% of the battery volume, so 87kWh for the model 3. If the energy density is (as claimed) higher for the new cells, that needs to be factored in as well. A 15% improvement there would get you your 100kWh pack. And presumably near to breaking the 400 mile range barrier.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## MichelT3

Michael Russo said:


> Agree, @Daliman, though an even more radical (Elon's chosen adjective for Model ≡...) target (wish?) would be 250 miles base EPA rated range, i.e. a nice round number (also interesting just - 2.3 km over the other magical threshold of 400 km!) as well as almost 5% _higher than the Bolt_ for the fun of it...
> Though I'd settle for 240 miles (386 km), what the heck..!


All this conjecture could be altered significantly if the charging rate is increased a lot. As the rumours go now. If you can charge in 5 or 10 minutes, most of us can do with a shorter range, which suffices for our daily drive.


----------



## Michael Russo

MichelT3 said:


> All this conjecture could be altered significantly if the charging rate is increased a lot. As the rumours go now. If you can charge in 5 or 10 minutes, most of us can do with a shorter range, which suffices for our daily drive.


That is true, @MichelT3 . For our daily drive yes... Yet do not forget that most of us, I am sure, will want to take our formidable ride on _longer_ trips, in NA, Europe & Australia, whether occasionally or more frequently... In addition, as we all know, the announced range calls for optimal conditions (NOT too cold, not too fast, etc.). Though it may be appealing to some take their time, others will either need or want to go faster...
However, you are absolutely right a notably shorter charging time will be most useful! And I remain convinced that, in the end, we'll all take the largest battery we can afford, relative to our individual needs... and all other options we _value_! 
Have a nice last week day of 2016! :rainbow:


----------



## MichelT3

Michael Russo said:


> That is true, @MichelT3 . For our daily drive yes... Yet do not forget that most of us, I am sure, will want to take our formidable ride on _longer_ trips, in NA, Europe & Australia, whether occasionally or more frequently... In addition, as we all know, the announced range calls for optimal conditions (NOT too cold, not too fast, etc.). Though it may be appealing to some take their time, others will either need or want to go faster...
> However, you are absolutely right a notably shorter charging time will be most useful! And I remain convinced that, in the end, we'll all take the largest battery we can afford, relative to our individual needs... and all other options we _value_!
> Have a nice last week day of 2016! :rainbow:


Sure, disregarding charging time, I would want a car with which I can drive from east to west of the Netherlands, and back, without charging. That's 300 km. Add a little surplus, normal driving circumstances and winter conditions. Which would boil down to a range of 425-450 EPA km. (NOT NEDC km!)
Am I right?


----------



## Dan Detweiler

MichelT3 said:


> Sure, disregarding charging time, I would want a car with which I can drive from east to west of the Netherlands, and back, without charging. That's 300 km. Add a little surplus, normal driving circumstances and winter conditions. Which would boil down to a range of 425-450 EPA km. (NOT NEDC km!)
> Am I right?


Gonna have to pee in there somewhere...might as well do it at a Supercharger! 

Dan


----------



## Badback

I would go for the largest pack that I can afford. Being retired means that normally we make infrequent local trips, mostly for provisions once a week. But, being retired also means several road trips a year, possibly as far as New Mexico and Virginia, and as close as Iowa and the Milwaukee area, to visit relatives Also many trips to national parks a far as Yosemite. Fewer stops for charging would definitely be a plus. At this point, I am more concerned about destination charging at hotels along the way. I haven't seen much discussion on this forum about this necessity.


----------



## TrevP

I'd be happy with 85kWh on the Model 3. That would give me the range I like and help mitigate range loss in the winter months.

A 100kWh battery pack would be feasible but very costly. Then again, Tesla has never shied away from costly options so no reason why they wouldn't do it for the 1% that can afford it.


----------



## MichelT3

Dan Detweiler said:


> Gonna have to pee in there somewhere...might as well do it at a Supercharger!
> 
> Dan


I'll be earning money in there somewhere. That's even better than peeing (I might even pee while they pay me...) 
Besides, it's not that difficult to drive more than 500 km without peeing....

Whether I take the largest or the middle pack, depends on price. Trips longer than 400 km are seldom in my case.


----------



## Dan Detweiler

500 kilometers without peeing...?

Give it a few more years. 

Dan


----------



## MichelT3

Dan Detweiler said:


> 500 kilometers without peeing...?
> 
> Give it a few more years.
> 
> Dan


In a few more years it wouldn't be that difficult to pee while on autonomous drive, I think. An idea for an accessory by Evannex?


----------



## Dan Detweiler

Naaahhhh...

Just use an old peanut butter jar like we did. No joke, that's what I used on long family trips as a kid. To this day I can't look at a jar of Peter Pan the same way.

Dan


----------



## Badback

When you order your ≡, just in include the Tesoilet option.


----------



## The Pope

I would love 250+ miles and 0-60 in < 5.0


----------



## Red Sage

My own WHISKEY ALPHA GOLF (WAG) as to potential EPA range ratings for Tesla Model ☰:

_60 kWh _ 225-to-250 miles
_70 kWh _ 254-to-282 miles*
_85 kWh _ 292-to-324 miles
100 kWh _ 340-to-378 miles**
120 kWh _ 408-to-454 miles
135 kWh _ 459-to-510 miles***
150 kWh _ 510-to-567 miles
170 kWh _ 583-to-648 miles
*Enough to satisfy most buyers given the price point.
**Enough to match or surpass most performance oriented ICE competitors.
***Enough to silence EV Naysayers for good.​
As usual, I have no inside information whatsoever, and I'm probably quite wrong. Hence the roughly 10% margin of error shown.


----------



## Michael Russo

Red Sage said:


> My own WHISKEY ALPHA GOLF (WAG) as to potential EPA range ratings for Tesla Model ☰:
> _60 kWh _ 225-to-250 miles
> (...)
> _170 kWh _ 583-to-648 miles​


Wow! @Red Sage , what a (battery) range...! (pun intended... ).
Like the last one which I would have rated
_'****Enough for me to drive from Belgium to the South of France without taking a bio break._'!


----------



## Red Sage

As your Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Certified Apologist Fanboy, I realized right around mind-2014 or so that it was all about the numbers. It is inevitable that some day... _SOON_... it will be possible to store the energy equivalent of five gallons of gasoline within an electric vehicle without tremendous expense. That works out to ~170 kWh.... And that much of an energy reserve, combined with the natural efficiency of an electric drivetrain would make for a long distance driving experience vastly superior to what is currently available. So, if they like, people will be able continue using the same old bad habits they have adopted for driving ICE when operating a BEV. Especially when dyna, mega, ultra charging options appear to fulfill the splash & dash dreams of cannon ball run/gumball rally fans everywhere.

If 170 kWh can be held in a volume that is less than that of a 25 gallon fuel tank... While weighing in at 600 lbs or less... Then range concerns will be eliminated along with worries over handling and maneuvering at speed. There is no need for batteries to match the energy density of gasoline as long as EVs are better than five times efficient when it comes to Performance ICE. I expect that will be possible before 2030. Perhaps even by 2027.


----------



## Bobby Garrity

I see no reason why a 100kWh battery isn't doable on the Model 3. They got to 100kWh on the Model S with the 18650s, and who's to say that can't be higher?


----------



## Gilberto Pe-Curto

I'm sure @TrevP would have a clue of the weight added and the impact on efficiency vs a 60kwh version...
If a 100kwh doesn't weigh twice the 50kwh...
Is it proporcional ?


----------



## Topher

Bobby Garrity said:


> I see no reason why a 100kWh battery isn't doable on the Model 3. They got to 100kWh on the Model S with the 18650s, and who's to say that can't be higher?


Tesla did. When they came out with the 100, they said that was as much as they could fit without changing cells.

I figure about 86% of the space in the Model 3 versus the S, so the reason would be that they couldn't squeeze another 15% in efficiency into the 2170s over the 18650s. They might have, or might not.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## MelindaV

Topher said:


> I figure about 86% of the space in the Model 3 versus the S, so the reason would be that they couldn't squeeze another 15% in efficiency into the 2170s over the 18650s. They might have, or might not.
> 
> Thank you kindly.


I do think the % is a bit higher at 90% as far as the battery area available.
The S wheelbase is 116.5" x width 77" for 8970.5 square inches
the 3* wheel base is 113" x width 74.2" for 8384.6 square inches = 93.3% (corrected)

*based on MotorTrend's estimates


----------



## garsh

MelindaV said:


> I do think the % is a bit higher at 90% as far as the battery area available.


My rough calculation came out to 93%
https://teslaownersonline.com/threa...ing-options-might-be-the-key.1779/#post-10169


----------



## MelindaV

garsh said:


> My rough calculation came out to 93%
> https://teslaownersonline.com/threa...ing-options-might-be-the-key.1779/#post-10169


You are right, I dropped the '4' in 74.2"...


MelindaV said:


> The S wheelbase is 116.5" x width 77" for 8970.5 square inches
> the 3* wheel base is 113" x width 74.2" for 8384.6 square inches = 93.3% (corrected)


So 93.3% of the Model S area, plus the extra 5mm height the 2170 cells have over the 18650s makes the two quite similar in volume.
Model S 8970.5 sq inches x 2.559 inches (65mm) cell height = 22,955.5 cubic inches
Model 3 8384.6 sq inches x 2.756 inches (70mm) cell height = 23,107.9 cubic inches
Assuming the 2170 is more energy dense, in relatively the same cubic space, the Model 3 configuration should be able to out perform the Model S configuration in capable kWh.


----------



## Michael Russo

MelindaV said:


> (...) Assuming the 2170 is more energy dense, in relatively the same cubic space, the Model 3 configuration should be able to out perform the Model S configuration in capable kWh.


Not to mention overall lower weight and superior drag coefficient of 0.21 vs. 0.24 for Model S... We should be in great shape... Still hoping for a base 240, if not 250 miles range... Radical is the goal!!


----------



## Steve C

MelindaV said:


> You are right, I dropped the '4' in 74.2"...
> 
> So 93.3% of the Model S area, plus the extra 5mm height the 2170 cells have over the 18650s makes the two quite similar in volume.
> Model S 8970.5 sq inches x 2.559 inches (65mm) cell height = 22,955.5 cubic inches
> Model 3 8384.6 sq inches x 2.756 inches (70mm) cell height = 23,107.9 cubic inches
> Assuming the 2170 is more energy dense, in relatively the same cubic space, the Model 3 configuration should be able to out perform the Model S configuration in capable kWh.


Ya I agree @MelindaV.
This is why I think we are in for a heck of a year. If you are correct, and I believe you are, wait until they add the extra height on the S and X for the 2170. I'm thinking 130-150 model S and X in the near future. Imagine the range.

If someone else could do the math on what's possible.... @garsh , @MelindaV , @Michael Russo ??


----------



## Topher

garsh said:


> My rough calculation came out to 93%


Probably within the error bars.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## garsh

Topher said:


> Probably within the error bars.


Yep. I was just pointing out that I had done a similar calculation. I apologize for implying that there was a mistake in anybody else's.


----------



## teslaliving

I wouldn't go for a 100kWh battery if they had it on the 3. I'd like one that was in the range of 265 miles rated as that's what I'm used to on my S. 250 would probably work, much less than that and I'd probably want a bigger battery. I'm assuming the default battery may be too small but they'll have an option that fits my need.

As an anecdote, I was on a trip the other day to Brooklyn, NY. I could have made the 3.5 hour drive on a single charge. But I needed a break about 2.5 hours into the drive. That isn't likely to change even with Autopilot helping. I stopped for 10 mins and grabbed some charge while taking a break. My stops are more around my needs than the car.


----------



## Red Sage

Topher said:


> I figure about 86% of the space in the Model 3 versus the S, so the reason would be that they couldn't squeeze another 15% in efficiency into the 2170s over the 18650s. They might have, or might not.



JB Straubel has been saying since at least mid-2015 that he expects a 30% improvement in energy density for 2017 Generation III vehicles as compared to 2012 for Generation II. I take that to mean that:

The volume needed to store as much as 85 kWh will be perhaps only 70% as much; and
That 86% of the available volume might hold ~104 kWh without issue.
Perhaps the numbers will be different per others' calculations.


----------



## Bobby Garrity

There you have it, folks. The Model 3 will not have a 100kWh option. At least not anytime soon.


----------



## Steve C

Bobby Garrity said:


> View attachment 957
> 
> There you have it, folks. The Model 3 will not have a 100kWh option. At least not anytime soon.


Wow. I'm a bit lost for words. I was sure the 100 would be the top.


----------



## Mike

Steve C said:


> Wow. I'm a bit lost for words. I was sure the 100 would be the top.


Well......will we get a battery option on the Model 3 that will enable an EPA rated 300 miles/500 kms range?

Ultimately, that is my hope. If that can be done with something less than 100 kWh battery, so much the better.


----------



## Gilberto Pe-Curto

Won't be 100, but probably will do the same as an S with 100kwh, given the weight of this car.
More than enough to make 300miles, I'm betting

EDIT: Multiple Pastes by mistake


----------



## Mike

Gilberto Pe-Curto said:


> Won't be 100, but probably will do the same as an S with 100kwh, given the weight of this car.
> More than enough to make 300miles, I'm betting


That's all I really hope for. The stipulated desire for a 100 kWh battery is incidental. As long as a 300 mile EPA range can be bought as an option package, millions will be sold.


----------



## TrevP

Elon has always said there's a balance between range, weight and price with battery packs. Given his comment today I'm quite convinced they're shooting for affordability for this car at the expense of crazy top of the line features. It falls in line with their plan on making it as mass market as possible with a quality product. Tesla has not let us down yet on good cars, only the pricing has been problematic but they've been pretty transparent on that front with generating as much revenue as possible.

Given their charging network I'm sure they feel the range they have now is adequate for most. Remember, comparisons with the Bolt are moot as we will have battery size choices whereas they don't and the quality of other items and tech will be better at close to the same base price.


----------



## Red Sage

Elon is typically more sincere than coy. But I still strongly suspect this denial is indeed for the sake of initial pricing control; reduction of sticker shock; insistence upon what constitutes 'enough' range; and predictable inventory control -- not because they actually can't do it. Tesla already knows the Model ≡ will be far more popular than hoped. So they can hold back on_ 'demand levers' _for some time. I just hope that a 70-to-90 kWh battery pack is sufficient to deliver the level of embarrassment that AUDI, BMW, Cadillac, Jaguar, Infiniti, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, and Alfa Romeo performance variants in the segment deserve to be dealt during instrumented road/track testing from the outset. I'm certain that a 100-to-135 kWh capacity would have done so. But hey, I'm just some overkill crazy dude on the internet. What the heck do I know?


----------



## MelindaV

@Red Sage - should I send Elon the quick calcs I did showing the battery area between the S and 3 will be quite similar, and with presumed density improvements with the new cell format it should easily be able to match/exceed the 100kWh capacity? 

a point I'd seen made earlier today that I though had some validity to it was limiting the initial run of Model ☰s battery size could allow them to push more overall vehicles thru production in the course of a week/month/year. spread more battery love around instead of having some cars hoarding 100kWh worth of cells that could instead supply two 50kWh cars.


----------



## Dan Detweiler

Having no knowledge of the science of all this I ask without knowing the implications.

Could a 90 kWh battery in a Model 3 get the same range as a 100kWh battery in a Model S?

Dan


----------



## Bobby Garrity

Dan Detweiler said:


> Having no knowledge of the science of all this I ask without knowing the implications.
> 
> Could a 90 kWh battery in a Model 3 get the same range as a 100kWh battery in a Model S?
> 
> Dan


Possibly. We'll know for sure soon enough.


----------



## Red Sage

MelindaV said:


> @Red Sage - should I send Elon the quick calcs I did showing the battery area between the S and 3 will be quite similar, and with presumed density improvements with the new cell format it should easily be able to match/exceed the 100kWh capacity?


Sure! Go ahead. It can't hurt, I think.



MelindaV said:


> a point I'd seen made earlier today that I though had some validity to it was limiting the initial run of Model ☰s battery size could allow them to push more overall vehicles thru production in the course of a week/month/year. spread more battery love around instead of having some cars hoarding 100kWh worth of cells that could instead supply two 50kWh cars.


Yes. There is that possibility as well. I strongly suspect that both Elon and JB only want the Model ≡ to have 'enough' range to be a viable option to ICE. They have typically spoken of a_ 'sweet spot' _somewhere between 250 and 350 miles, without being more specific. At least not beyond Elon saying the jury was in on what the minimum acceptable range was: 200 miles in real world conditions, not perfect weather, flat ground, driving Miss Daisy to a hippie treehugger convention, etc. They sort of sidestep requests for a _'500 mile battery' _with Model S, and for a_ '400 mile battery' _for Model ≡.

Reading between the lines I presume their position is that it doesn't make sense to continue the poor habits learned from driving ICE vehicles. There's no point in having a 400 mile range if you intend to stop every 300 miles anyway. That would be 100 miles as a constant buffer held in reserve for... What? Peace of mind? I think they trust the technology and would prefer Consumers learn to do so as well. So that instead of filling up automatically when there is a 1/4 tank, 25% remaining, people learn to do so at perhaps 10% or even 5% remaining instead.



Dan Detweiler said:


> Could a 90 kWh battery in a Model 3 get the same range as a 100kWh battery in a Model S?




My guess? Probably. I go by my own sort of_ 'napkin math'_ for this. It is my no means accurate or dependable.

But, I look at the EPA range for a certain configuration of Model S. I divide that by 5, then multiply the result by 6. I then take that amount and reduce it by 10% to get a guesstimate of what might be possible with Model ≡.

265 ___ Model S 90
294 ___ Model S 90D
335 ___ Model S 100D
315 ___ Model S P100D​
So...
286 to 318 ___ Model ≡ 90 (53×6)
318 to 353 ___ Model ≡ 90 D (58.8×6)
362 to 402 ___ Model ≡ 100 (67×6)
340 to 378 ___ Model ≡ P100D (63×6)​
I figure this would get you close enough for government work, at least.


----------



## Twiglett

Red Sage said:


> I figure this would get you close enough for government work, at least.


I work for the government, so that works for me 
One thing I found I was always forgetting when driving home - it was fine to get home with <15 miles range left, because in the morning it would be full again. I would get range anxiety driving home with 40 miles left, still thinking ICE mode when it wasn't needed. Nowadays, getting home with <10 is no problem, but it does take time for that ICE mode thinking to leave the system.


----------



## Red Sage

EV4Life said:


> I work for the government, so that works for me
> One thing I found I was always forgetting when driving home - it was fine to get home with <15 miles range left, because in the morning it would be full again. I would get range anxiety driving home with 40 miles left, still thinking ICE mode when it wasn't needed. Nowadays, getting home with <10 is no problem, but it does take time for that ICE mode thinking to leave the system.


I believe the_ 'bad habits' _will return when a 1/4 tank, 25% buffer is_ 'only' _around 250 miles or so... But will go away again when 10% remaining is 250 miles. And by the time 10% remaining is 6,000 miles? No one will care.


----------



## Michael Russo

Whether for range or extra time insane acceleration, I have no doubt the top battery (~90 kWh) will more than to satisfy the vast majority of target Model ≡ customers for a while... (and me forever... )
Yet, with technology evolving and requirements (of some) sharpening, who's to say never... What if this was the new under-promising, over-delivering approach?


----------



## Guy Weathersby

Bobby Garrity said:


> We'll know for sure soon enough.


Soon enough is not soon enough.


----------



## MichelT3

All this talk and speculation about range of different battery packs is just that.
Because we don't know what's going to happen exactly. The Model 3 will have different cells, different cooling system, different charging system, different drivetrain, different aerodynamics, different weight from the Model S. And then there are personal and environmental factors while driving, like road types, average speed, differences in speed, accelleration, terrain, wind, temperature, etc. Too many variables at this point to get a certain enough outcome about what range you personnally will need for your Model 3.
We will have to wait and see.

And then there is a factor which isn't taken into account; charging speed at the Superchargers; 120 / 145 / 350 / 500+ kW.
For me that will be far more important than range. As long as the range of my car is enough for the daily drives I make frequently.
Those are 350 km for me = 220 miles + margins. For longer drives supercharging en route will be needed anyway.
If I can supercharge 10-80 % in say 15 minutes, that would be much more important than a range of 500 km / 300 miles, which I will use seldomly.


----------



## Gilberto Pe-Curto

Well said @MichelT3 
It's just the enthusiasm of all of us having to wait for it...
Seems like speaking about it helps..
This forum is like a trip to the "Psychiatrist of Tesla Fans"
At least for me...
;-)


----------



## Dan Detweiler

[QUOTE
If I can supercharge 10-80 % in say 15 minutes, that would be much more important than a range of 500 km / 300 miles, which I will use seldomly.[/QUOTE]

Winner!


----------



## garsh

MichelT3 said:


> If I can supercharge 10-80 % in say 15 minutes, that would be much more important than a range of 500 km / 300 miles, which I will use seldomly.


Until you end up wanting to take a 350-mile day trip with no superchargers available along your chosen route (I really need Tesla to add some stations along I80 in western PA).


----------



## MichelT3

garsh said:


> Until you end up wanting to take a 350-mile day trip with no superchargers available along your chosen route (I really need Tesla to add some stations along I80 in western PA).


Then you either charge at another 'fast' (CHadeMo, or other) charger, take a detour via a supercharger, or Tesla will have many more superchargers.
I think the latter, There will be 500.000 Tesla's end 2018, 1 million a year later and >2 million in 2022!
They sure need a lot of charging capacity all over the place!


----------



## pjfw8

Dan Detweiler said:


> [QUOTE
> If I can supercharge 10-80 % in say 15 minutes, that would be much more important than a range of 500 km / 300 miles, which I will use seldomly.


Winner![/QUOTE]
Seriously...why not both!


----------



## MichelT3

pjfw8 said:


> Winner!
> Seriously...why not both!


Because extra large battery = extra weight = extra costs & less range. 
There is an optimum.
Just as there is an optimum with charging speed.


----------



## pjfw8

MichelT3 said:


> Because extra large battery = extra weight = extra costs & less range.
> There is an optimum.
> Just as there is an optimum with charging speed.


 I understand optimization. But why design a vehicle that could be optimized for the needs of California,Florida and parts of Europe. Why ignore the needs of most of the East Coast, the Midwest and Canada? Frankly, I don't need a Tesla. I want a Tesla. Any car should meet my needs and my reasonable wants. Just like every other consumer product. It can't fully succeed until it does.


----------



## John

We're still in the era of "bigger is better" for batteries. This will gradually diminish as recharge stations are more common and folks have less range anxiety—and the first question at a ****tail party isn't "How far will it go on a charge?"


----------



## Dan Detweiler

pjfw8 said:


> I understand optimization. But why design a vehicle that could be optimized for the needs of California,Florida and parts of Europe. Why ignore the needs of most of the East Coast, the Midwest and Canada? Frankly, I don't need a Tesla. I want a Tesla. Any car should meet my needs and my reasonable wants. Just like every other consumer product. It can't fully succeed until it does.


Every car is a compromise. The purchase is always a balance between what we need and what we want...as well as what we can afford. It's a personal decision and everyone will see it differently. If a given car works for you...buy it. If it doesn't...there are plenty of other options out there but I don't think the perfect car exists. There will always be give and take.

Dan


----------



## pjfw8

Dan Detweiler said:


> Every car is a compromise. The purchase is always a balance between what we need and what we want...as well as what we can afford. It's a personal decision and everyone will see it differently. If a given car works for you...buy it. If it doesn't...there are plenty of other options out there but I don't think the perfect car exists. There will always be give and take.
> 
> Dan


 I'm not talking "want" at this point. A 250 mile tesla ( flat ground on a cool spring day with no headwind) does not meet basic needs and most of the country.


----------



## Dan Detweiler

pjfw8 said:


> I'm not talking "want" at this point. A 250 mile tesla ( flat ground on a cool spring day with no headwind) does not meet basic needs and most of the country.


Then perhaps an ICE better suits your needs at this point.

The Model 3 can't be everything for everybody. Nor can any car. It will be what its going to be and then everyone will have to weigh the final decision for themselves. Sometimes the answer will be no...and that's ok.

Dan


----------



## garsh

Dan Detweiler said:


> Then perhaps an ICE better suits your needs at this point.


True. And I'll hang onto my minivan and sell my Leaf when my 3 arrives because of this.

In the meantime, I'll just keep chanting...

Larger batteries!
Faster supercharging!
More supercharging locations!


----------



## pjfw8

Dan Detweiler said:


> Then perhaps an ICE better suits your needs at this point.
> 
> The Model 3 can't be everything for everybody. Nor can any car. It will be what its going to be and then everyone will have to weigh the final decision for themselves. Sometimes the answer will be no...and that's ok.
> 
> Dan


You are right, of course! Perhaps M3 will be available as an 85 or 90kW. I could make that work. My situation is similar to tens of millions of drivers on the east coast, central states and Canada. Why write us off? In any event. in 5 years we will have ton's of options.


----------



## MichelT3

Who said anything about writing anyone off? But it's neither necessary that everyone should have a 90 or 100 kWh battery pack.


----------



## pjfw8

MichelT3 said:


> Who said anything about writing anyone off? But it's neither necessary that everyone should have a 90 or 100 kWh battery pack.


True, many would be fine with 70 or even less


----------



## Red Sage

pjfw8 said:


> I'm not talking "want" at this point. A 250 mile tesla ( flat ground on a cool spring day with no headwind) does not meet basic needs and most of the country.


Neither did a late 60s or early 70s gas guzzling pony car with a 19 gallon tank that hoped for 8 MPG on a good day. But Americans all over still bought hundreds of thousands of them back then. And it is very likely that the base version of the Model ≡ would leave those cars in the dust, as well as sitting on empty. There used to be a lot more gas stations. People have largely forgotten how often they used to stop for fuel prior to 1990 or so. The 'Last Chance GAS!' locations of lore shut down a long, long time ago, thanks to improved fuel economy and greater range achieved in the past two decades or so.


----------



## Twiglett

MichelT3 said:


> Who said anything about writing anyone off? But it's neither necessary that everyone should have a 90 or 100 kWh battery pack.


Having a battery _just_ big enough means you have to charge the crap out of it. 
Make it bigger than you need and you suddenly give it a lifetime twice as long.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't stop for meals every two or three hours. Its more like four or five hours, which is more like 350-400 miles.


----------



## MichelT3

EV4Life said:


> Having a battery _just_ big enough means you have to charge the crap out of it.
> Make it bigger than you need and you suddenly give it a lifetime twice as long.
> 
> I don't know about you guys, but I don't stop for meals every two or three hours. Its more like four or five hours, which is more like 350-400 miles.


You supposing a contradiction where there isn't one. I'm just saying that the size of the battery depends on the way you use the car. Large or small differs for people. Both have advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Twiglett

MichelT3 said:


> You supposing a contradiction where there isn't one. I'm just saying that the size of the battery depends on the way you use the car. Large or small differs for people. Both have advantages and disadvantages.


in that case I completely agree :sunglasses:


----------



## Topher

EV4Life said:


> Make it bigger than you need and you suddenly give it a lifetime twice as long.


Empirical evidence disagrees.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## MelindaV

EV4Life said:


> Having a battery _just_ big enough means you have to charge the crap out of it.
> Make it bigger than you need and you suddenly give it a lifetime twice as long.


Maybe they should call the largest battery option The Texas.


----------



## Twiglett

Topher said:


> Empirical evidence disagrees.
> 
> Thank you kindly.


Everything I've seen does show that 100% charge/drain cycles are extremely bad for your battery and will impact its longevity.
Anyway, these discussions always remind me of an earlier technology. Why on earth would people even consider wasting money to install more than 640K memory into a PC?



MelindaV said:


> Maybe they should call the largest battery option The Texas.


While I do like that idea, sadly there are a number of states other than Texas where a significant proportion of the state is extremely inconvenient to use BEVs
Even with all the superchargers appearing in TX (there are 6 or 7 in planning or construction) there are whole chunks that take extremely detailed planning in order to travel there.


----------



## MelindaV

I was more referring to 'everything is bigger in Texas', not that a larger battery specifically is needed in TX. (it was my attempt at being punny :disappointed


----------



## Twiglett

MelindaV said:


> I was more referring to 'everything is bigger in Texas', not that a larger battery specifically is needed in TX.


:sunglasses: I figured that bit :sunglasses:

Honestly the main reason I dislike the "_you don't really need a bigger battery_" argument is that I currently drive a LEAF.
When it and all those other <100 mile BEVs arrived, all the manufacturers backfilled surveys and studies that justified the existence of their car that could not travel more than 90 miles at a time. 
If that was an ICE powered car it would have been laughed off the streets.

I really don't care that 50% (or whatever number) of commutes are 40 miles or whatever. We are attempting to justify a real world limitation by pretending that its not needed.
Having experienced what its like being limited by vehicle range every week, it gets really frustrating when someone tells me I don't need more range.


----------



## garsh

EV4Life said:


> Everything I've seen does show that 100% charge/drain cycles are extremely bad for your battery and will impact its longevity.


Generally true for lithium-ion batteries. However, Tesla/Panasonic seems to have stumbled upon some holy grail of battery chemistry. Their battery packs are seeing very minor degradation over time, regardless of usage. I believe this is what Topher refers to.


----------



## MichelT3

I understand @EV4Life. Although I never said that you don't need more range.
Also there is a huge difference between having to cope with max 90 miles and saying everyone should have 300 miles.
I would like 300 miles (or more) but I can do with 250.


----------



## MelindaV

plus superchargers that the 90 mile EVs don't have


----------



## Twiglett

MelindaV said:


> plus superchargers that the 90 mile EVs don't have


Indeed - I am constantly amazed by how many people write off superchargers, yet they are one of the biggest reasons that Tesla's work so well.
The combination of car and network built to compliment each other is unparalleled.


----------



## Mark C

pjfw8 said:


> I'm not talking "want" at this point. A 250 mile tesla ( flat ground on a cool spring day with no headwind) does not meet basic needs and most of the country.


In the part of AL I live in, with rolling terrain and a mountain between me and my favorite weekend destination...250 is still more than enough for me. I just don't think there are that many people who (1) "need" >250 miles of range, and (2) are even considering an electric car.

If they want, and can scrape up the money, they can go for a max range Model S. Of course the 4 or 5 people who can't get by on that kind of range can drive something that also comes with a built in Porta Potti. {sarc}


----------



## Mark C

EV4Life said:


> I don't know about you guys, but I don't stop for meals every two or three hours. Its more like four or five hours, which is more like 350-400 miles.


I don't eat that often either, but at my age if I have a big cup of coffee in the cupholder, a Leaf and Chademo would work for me!


----------



## Red Sage

For a long while those in Tesla's Model S forum would often use the phrase _'REAL Highway Speeds' _when chastising the car's useful range. It was the sort of statement that remained undefined for quite some time. Whenever I would ask them to specify what that meant, since they often claimed the range was not fit for their needs or driving style, they were extremely reluctant to answer directly. But they did claim the_ 'actual range' _for the Model S 85 was something like 170 miles instead of 265 EPA, or 300 miles in_ 'Range Mode' _per Tesla.

Though they wouldn't answer directly, I eventually pieced together the problem they were experiencing to cause their so-called_ 'range anxiety'._ They wanted to continue the bad habits they had become accustomed to while driving ICE vehicles when using an EV. That is, they didn't want to plan road trips at all. They wanted to be able to pull off the highway at any random exit and be assured they could find an operational Supercharger any time they had a _'1/4 tank' _remaining and be back on their way after a _'splash-n-dash'_ mythical five-minute stop to refuel Banzai/Cannonball Run style.

Basically, they wanted to exceed the posted speed limit by around 15-to-25 MPH no matter where they went. They insisted the car was_ 'meant to be driven fast'._ They resisted all suggestions to simply slow down to make range. Instead of _'driving like a Grandma' _they wanted to _'Drive It Like You Stole It!'_

Ever since the point was proven that by hypermiling it was possible to exceed 400 miles in a Model S 85, and then 500 miles in a Model S P90D, those guys largely shut up about it or left the forum.

I freely admit that in my youth, the bad old days when speed limits were artificially low at 55 MPH, I protested that fact by driving at 85 MPH instead. But, as highway speeds increased steadily in the 1990s I began to slow down. 65, 70, 75, 80, 85 MPH posted limits in various places were generally _'enough'_ for me to bear when driving cross country. I rarely drive more than 5 MPH over the posted limit, and then only when passing someone that is towing stuff or operating a vehicle that blocks the view ahead.

When driving an ICE vehicle on the open highway I try to minimize my number of refueling stops by as much as possible. I prefer to stop when there is less than 1/8th tank remaining. So under 12.5% and often less than 10% fuel left in reserve. I'd want to do the same with an EV.

So rather than having 25% plus a 30 mile buffer, I'd be fine with only enough range added to reach the next Supercharger. Especially since numerous accounts by existing Tesla owners peg that as the best strategy for arriving at your destination well rested and in a timely fashion. But sure, when a battery pack capacity is enough to leapfrog Supercharger locations I'll be perfectly happy to do so.

Superchargers do not need to be at every exit, or spaced every 50 miles. There is nothing wrong with consrrving range by driving at the posted speed limit. It would be a waste of resources to have a 500 mile battery pack if you will never drive over 350 miles at a time. EPA range ratings will never be based on fulfilling the needs of people who want to drive at 90+ MPH all the time. It is rather rare that ICE vehicles with a performance profile approaching that of a Tesla have a range in excess of 400 miles, let alone 500.


----------



## Michael Benson

Ditto!

I enjoy your posts quite a bit, Red Sage, and I get you way too much. Can't wait to drive comfortably to our vacation spot in my new Tesla Model 3 using Autopilot and Supercharging, just as it was meant to be.

Michael


----------



## Bobby Garrity

Red Sage said:


> They wanted to continue the bad habits they had become accustomed to while driving ICE vehicles when using an EV.


But that's the thing. We won't have complete electrification until electric cars are better than ICE cars in every way. And this means that they allow people to continue doing whatever bad habits they please, even if they were bad habits with an ICE car in the first place. That's why we still need longer range, more charging stations, and faster charging for long distance travel.


----------



## Red Sage

Bobby Garrity said:


> But that's the thing. We won't have complete electrification until electric cars are better than ICE cars in every way. And this means that they allow people to continue doing whatever bad habits they please, even if they were bad habits with an ICE car in the first place. That's why we still need longer range, more charging stations, and faster charging for long distance travel.


I foresee a time when all the arguments in favor of ICE instead of EV are moot. But long before that time comes, it will be plainly obvious to any reasonable person that it is better to drive EV. When the cheapest of EVs has a range over 2,500 miles... When no one ever stops to charge, only for biological needs _(food, drink, lavatory, sleep)_... When having a 1/4 tank remaining means you can still drive over 600 miles before empty... When a stop to charge only takes seconds _(~*click*~ ding, ding, ding, ding, BONG)_... All this will happen far sooner than many understand.

Please note that the Tesla Model S P100D already has a superior range to the *BMW M3 and Chevrolet SS among others*. I expect that a Model ☰ P100D, if possible, would have an EPA rating of ~402 miles. Considering its competition, that should be sufficient.


----------



## MelindaV

I went on a half day work trip with one of my bosses this week and he is my one coworker who willingly asks me on a regular basis what the Model ☰ news / updates are (The rest just get it sprinkled in with random conversations). So in the conversation he said "but what are you going to do the first time you end up stuck out in a desert with no where to charge for hundreds of miles around?" I told him I don't remember if I've ever driven hundreds of miles into a desert before (not being a S. Californian that would drive to vegas). He did admitted he neither, but still one could get stranded hundreds of miles into a desert in an EV..... I'm pretty sure if I were to drive aimlessly in an ICE vehicle, I would be just as concerned.
(ETA: he also seriously asked if it would come w AC/heat, so apparently thinks I'm driving to the desert with no AC too)
The only time in my years driving I recall being seriously worried about running out of gas was when I went to pick up my dog from his breeder (or the trip I made there the week or two prior to see him and meet them) 12 years ago. It was about 1.5 hour drive across rural twisty mountain roads and a couple country highways. The mid sized town about half way I considered stopping for gas but figured I'd wait until I got closer because still had over a quarter tank. The next station I saw was in the small town where their address was, but still had about 10 miles of country driving to their house and the gas light and gauge had been on empty for a while. That gas station was boarded up. Searched and the next closest was in the next town that was about 20 miles the wrong direction (Where my grandparents lived). Entire way there I was thinking I'd be calling my grandma to rescue me! Made it there and when I filled up I ended up with nearly 2 gallons over what I typically put in when the needle sits on empty. 
Went and picked the puppy up and he's been a monster since. Maybe the trip out there should have been a warning


----------



## Daliman

Your chances of being able to find a plug, even a 240 plug, in the middle of nowhere are much higher than finding a gas station. Expanding auto service to include mobile boosting of EV batteries is not a tecnical problem. In 5 yrs range anxiety will vanish.


----------



## Badback

Emergency EV charging could become a standard service of towing companies. Too bad that the generators would probably be diesel.


----------



## Daliman

Why not Tesla tow trucks with extra battery capacity. While something like this will likely exist the rate of growth in high speed charging and the fact that there will be hundreds of thousands of home chargers added per year starting in 2018 should take care of this.


----------



## pjfw8

Badback said:


> Emergency EV charging could become a standard service of towing companies. Too bad that the generators would probably be diesel.


I heard that AAA is providing the service in some California locations


----------



## Topher

Badback said:


> Emergency EV charging could become a standard service of towing companies. Too bad that the generators would probably be diesel.


More incentive not to run out.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Red Sage

Badback said:


> Emergency EV charging could become a standard service of towing companies. Too bad that the generators would probably be diesel.


Yeah. At least until they begin to carry Energon Cubes or use a Mr. Fusion.


----------



## Uricasha

Well a Model X has a towing capacity of 5,000 lbs, an 85 kWhr Tesla battery weighs 1200 lbs. Assuming the trailer hardware weighs 500 lbs, a Tesla Model X could pull 318 kWhrs of electricity. 

Pump that juice in at the supercharger rate and you're good to go.


----------



## Badback

Red Sage said:


> Yeah. At least until they begin to carry Energon Cubes or use a Mr. Fusion.


Maybe we should start stockpiling banana peels now.


----------



## Daliman

Is there a clocktower attacment for the charger? 

1.21 gigawatts what are you talking about a childs toy? Is Elon really Doc Brown?


----------



## Red Sage

Jigga-wha...? Jigga-_WHO?_










https://www.buzzfeed.com/generalele...watts-of-power?utm_term=.ep1koY2Bn#.dtn8qPdVY


----------



## MelindaV

Red Sage said:


> Jigga-wha...? Jigga-_WHO?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/generalele...watts-of-power?utm_term=.ep1koY2Bn#.dtn8qPdVY


well, the Gigafactory building area is measured in units of hamsters


----------



## Red Sage

MelindaV said:


> well, the Gigafactory building area is measured in units of hamsters


Awesome! Now that's what I call biofuel! Clean, renewable, self-replicating... It's The MATRiX for rodents! w00+!


----------



## Topher

MelindaV said:


> well, the Gigafactory building area is measured in units of hamsters


But, but... 50 Billion Hamsters / 8.0 Billion Hamster per 1.21 Gigawatts = 7.5 Gigawatts = 65.7 Terawatt-hours per year.
Which means 131 MWh per car!

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Red Sage

Topher said:


> But, but... 50 Billion Hamsters / 8.0 Billion Hamster per 1.21 Gigawatts = 7.5 Gigawatts = 65.7 Terawatt-hours per year.
> Which means 131 MWh per car!


That's the spirit!


----------



## Badback

Red Sage said:


> Jigga-wha...? Jigga-_WHO?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/generalele...watts-of-power?utm_term=.ep1koY2Bn#.dtn8qPdVY


Thank you @Red Sage. Let's remind everyone that it's pronounced j-eye-ga, not gig-ga.


----------



## Gilberto Pe-Curto

Red Sage said:


> That's the spirit!


this is so good I neet to steal it and post it on FB...
Thank You Kindly


----------



## Dan Detweiler

I think this thread represents the level of absolute insanity that we have all reached in our wait for the Model 3. Time to get fitted for my white jacket with the wrap-around sleeves. 

Dan


----------



## Badback

Is that Arnold Hampsternegger?


----------

