# Battery size / capacity?



## RossE

Have there been any hints on battery size and/or capacity? I've read some articles about battery packs for other Tesla cars, but haven't seen anything on the 3 yet.


----------



## TrevP

Not yet but I'd expect 60Kwh at the minimum. Tesla has pushed Model S capacities from 60 and 85 to 70 and 90 and now leaked firmware information indicates a 100Kwh pack coming in the future. Ostensibly to offer visible spread once the car is announced.

I'd suspect Model 3 will be 60 as the base and an optional battery pack of say around 80. 

As for range, Elon has said 200 miles (320Km) is the minimum passable range for an EV but most people are looking for about 20% more. I take that to mean around 240Miles (385kms) as a base with the optional battery possibly going as high as 270 miles (434Kms) or so. 

I'm expecting to order the biggest battery when the time comes but it all depends on the cost of the other options, the real range and what our dollar will be trading at in 2018. We're very lucky in Ontario be to able to qualify for the full $14,000 rebate for Model 3 as long as it has 5 seats, which I expect it to have.


----------



## TrevP

One thing that I caught during the presentation was details on the battery makeup. 

When Elon was talking about safety the 3D CAD design projected behind him showed 8 battery modules arranged lengthwise in the pack. Model S has 14 modules arranged sideways. More importantly though is I saw that the cells are much larger than the 18650 format used in Model S. 

This has been mentioned before in financial calls by Elon and JB. So they're definitely going with bigger cells made in the Gigafactory for Model 3


----------



## TrevP

There's enough information at the moment for me to start work on a video talking about some of the technical details about Model 3.

I will attempt to explain to everyone what has been said about Model 3 in the past along with information gleaned from the test rides and the 3D CAD model shown during the reveal.

Since the engineering prototypes are now real and being used as test vehicles along with possible acceleration of the project given the massive preorders, Tesla can't make massive changes between now and when production starts so it gives us a good starting points.

Stay tuned!!


----------



## teslaliving

The drag coefficient is supposed to be lower than the S. The S60 has 208 rated miles, the Model 3 is supposed to be 215. So with a lower drag coefficient i'd expect a 60kWh or smaller battery in the base version with room for more in the range/performance models.


----------



## d0n13

How do you charge the M3 when at home, is that unit included in the price or is some extra piece of kit included? For the S, how long does it take to fully charge when using your home charger?


----------



## teslaliving

The Model S comes with a Universal Mobile Connector or UMC which lets you charge the car from main sources. Most owners opt to geta higher power outlet put in their garage, the most common one is a NEMA 14-50 outlet (240v 50a).

This is from Tesla:









With that standard outlet the Model S can add about 100 miles of range in about 3.5 hours.

The charge times could be different with the Model 3.

Generally you charge overnight and its well done before youre done sleeping.

You can set the charge start time but not the charge end time.


----------



## d0n13

Thanks teslaliving. So in the UK/Ireland I believe we can pull 60amps into a home. It's limited by a 60A fuse so say 50A. So in theory with the right cable we can charge the car in 6 hours approx? 

So a 60kw battery will pull 10kw/h for 6 hours, which is about 45amps. In Ireland it's about 16c per kw/h. So this would give you the capacity of the battery for approx €10

That's pretty sweet.


----------



## teslaliving

Its unlikely you'd need a full charge each day. I drive 100 miles a day (30,000 miles a year) and that means its only ~3 hours for charging. The UMC and power specs vary by country. I'd expect them to be identical on the 3 but the battery charge times may vary.


----------



## Van Shrider

teslaliving said:


> The Model S comes with a Universal Mobile Connector or UMC which lets you charge the car from main sources. Most owners opt to geta higher power outlet put in their garage, the most common one is a NEMA 14-50 outlet (240v 50a).
> 
> This is from Tesla:
> View attachment 19
> 
> 
> With that standard outlet the Model S can add about 100 miles of range in about 3.5 hours.
> 
> The charge times could be different with the Model 3.
> 
> Generally you charge overnight and its well done before youre done sleeping.
> 
> You can set the charge start time but not the charge end time.


Wow. 6 hours vs 48 hours. I hope that my HOA will allow the NEMA 14-50 instillation in my garage.


----------



## teslaliving

If you can't get a 14-50 you can put in something lower power, it just adds to the charge time. You can also put in a HPWC which is 2x the speed of the 14-50...


----------



## TrevP

teslaliving said:


> If you can't get a 14-50 you can put in something lower power, it just adds to the charge time. You can also put in a HPWC which is 2x the speed of the 14-50...


You'd need an 80amp circuit for the HPWC to charge at double the rate... The vast majority of Model S owners have 40amp circuits for charging and it's plenty adequate for overnight charging.


----------



## TrevP

Van Shrider said:


> Wow. 6 hours vs 48 hours. I hope that my HOA will allow the NEMA 14-50 instillation in my garage.


Start asking now to be prepared for when the car arrives. I've already spoken to an electrician friend to run 40amps into my garage. We're in a freehold townhome so not a problem.


----------



## teslaliving

Some get the HPWC just as its a more permanent install. At the time the HWPC was more expensive than a second UMC so I opted to get a second UMC -- one for home charging and one to keep in the car for travel charging.


----------



## jkchiang

Anyone have any experiences with using the mobile connector primarily outdoors as your means of charging? I don't have a garage but do have an electrical outlet in the front of my home.


----------



## TrevP

Both the UMC and the HPWC are water resistant so it shouldn't be an issue to use it outside. Keep in mind however the cable is rather heavy so some owners are using cradles etc... to help support the UMC and keep the cable from cracking prematurely.

I plan on ordering the HPWC and installing that on the side of my garage. I will use that to charge the car and keep the UMC in the car for travelling.

If you don't know what those are you can see them on Tesla's shopping page:
http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging-adapters


----------



## DaGlot

I notice the range for the base Model S battery gets 10 miles more with AWD. Since I live 1200 ft up a little plateau with snowy winters I need AWD. A small increase, 215 up to 225 due to AWD would be helpful in the base Model 3 battery.


----------



## TrevP




----------



## Pinewold

Hopefully buying 300k of these accessories will dramatically drop the prices. $650 for an extension cord with multiple heads costing $45 each is ok for someone who has $80k - $100k, but at $35k these prices are high and knock offs will come out.


----------



## Reggie

Pinewold said:


> Hopefully buying 300k of these accessories will dramatically drop the prices. $650 for an extension cord with multiple heads costing $45 each is ok for someone who has $80k - $100k, but at $35k these prices are high and knock offs will come out.


It's unlikely that you'll get knockoffs as the Tesla connectors are patent to Tesla. *HOWEVER*, every Tesla sold to date comes with a J1772 adapter. There are plenty of systems on the market that are much cheaper than the Tesla units and could be used to charge your Tesla at home. Now, here are a few things to note:

Most J1772-based Level 2 chargers in the US run on 240V 30-32A (wired directly or using a NEMA 6-32) to be in compliance with Common Charging Standard (CCS). This would mean that your charge time for a 60KwH battery would increase to around 9 hours, 30 mins approximately from completely dead to full (as opposed to approximately 8). I have seen many of these units for as low as no cost to you (see note below) to around $500, which is cheaper than the Tesla unit.

Note: Units that have no cost are not available everywhere. Usually, they are provided by a charging network or a retail energy provider (ex. in Texas, we have the NRG EVGO Home unit which is a lease. Reliant/NRG installs the unit in your home, you pay a rather low flat monthly fee to use it).


----------



## Tim

I currently own a 2016 KIA Soul EV+. I charge the car with a Turbo Cord Portable Charger which uses a NEMA 6-20 240 VAC. Will the Universal Mobile Connecter be compatible with this system?


----------



## Carl

RossE said:


> Have there been any hints on battery size and/or capacity? I've read some articles about battery packs for other Tesla cars, but haven't seen anything on the 3 yet.


I read that the new battery chemistry includes about 10% silicon, which translates to much greater density than current ones, and cost $200/kwh. So the weight of the 60kwh battery would be significantly less.

Does anyone know if there is any basis to this story?


----------



## Reggie

While you could most certainly use the Turbo Cord with a Tesla (using the included J1772 adapter), I wouldn't recommend it. The reason is because the NEMA 6-20 delivers 240V at 16A to the car (over a 20A circuit). While this would definitely charge faster than a NEMA 5-15R, which delivers 110V at 12A to the car over a 15A circuit, we are talking about going from approximately 55 hours or so to just under a full day (approximately 23 hours by the math). That's about 3x slower than using the recommended NEMA 14-50 which delivers 240V at 40A to the car (over a 50A circuit) and the included Tesla mobile charger (which takes approximately 8 hours to charge a Tesla from depleted to full charge). So, while it would work, I wouldn't recommend it long term.


----------



## teslaliving

Pinewold said:


> Hopefully buying 300k of these accessories will dramatically drop the prices. $650 for an extension cord with multiple heads costing $45 each is ok for someone who has $80k - $100k, but at $35k these prices are high and knock offs will come out.


I think the UMC is a lot more than an extension cord with some adapters on it. Check out the manual here:
https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_mobile_connector_guide.pdf

It does things like open your charge port, check for faults, etc.


----------



## TrevP

Carl said:


> I read that the new battery chemistry includes about 10% silicon, which translates to much greater density than current ones, and cost $200/kwh. So the weight of the 60kwh battery would be significantly less.
> 
> Does anyone know if there is any basis to this story?


Tesla has mentioned they're using some amount of silicon in the anode but the exact amount is not known. They hired Dalhousie Battery expert Jeff Dahn to help them with battery Chemistry.

Here's his presentation on batteries, it's very informative, if a bit technical..


----------



## Tim

Thanks, Reggie.

I'll look into the feasibility of moving from the NEMA 6-20 to NEMA 14-50.


----------



## otakar

Looks like installation runs anywhere from US$200 - 1200. 
https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/cost-installation-nema-1450-240-v-outlet-garage


----------



## Reggie

Also, what I would consider is adding NEMA 14-50 as an addition as opposed to changing from the NEMA 6-20. The NEMA 6 and NEMA 14 are different physical connectors so if you already have the wiring for the NEMA 6, I would say keep it and add the NEMA 14 (it's going to require new wiring anyway). This will give you the ability to use both.


----------



## Pinewold

Reggie said:


> It's unlikely that you'll get knockoffs as the Tesla connectors are patent to Tesla. *HOWEVER*, every Tesla sold to date comes with a J1772 adapter. There are plenty of systems on the market that are much cheaper than the Tesla units and could be used to charge your Tesla at home. Now, here are a few things to note:
> 
> Most J1772-based Level 2 chargers in the US run on 240V 30-32A (wired directly or using a NEMA 6-32) to be in compliance with Common Charging Standard (CCS). This would mean that your charge time for a 60KwH battery would increase to around 9 hours, 30 mins approximately from completely dead to full (as opposed to approximately 8). I have seen many of these units for as low as no cost to you (see note below) to around $500, which is cheaper than the Tesla unit.
> 
> Note: Units that have no cost are not available everywhere. Usually, they are provided by a charging network or a retail energy provider (ex. in Texas, we have the NRG EVGO Home unit which is a lease. Reliant/NRG installs the unit in your home, you pay a rather low flat monthly fee to use it).


Thanks, already starting to get nervous about all of the additional costs. Home charger, adapter cable, adapters, possibly super charging. Is CHAdeMO worth $450? All of these options would add up fast.

I hope that Tesla creates three packages, $35k, $40k and $45k where AWD large battery and super charging come in two higher priced packages.middle package has autopilot and fixed glass roof, Top package has premium sound, premium interior and sunroof. If they try to make every car to order, they will never make it to 300k cars


----------



## Reggie

EV charging is really not that complicated. The Tesla can pretty much charge on anything. It really isn't the cable that controls this. Rather, it's the charger that's built into the car. The Universal Mobile Cable that comes with every Tesla Model S/X sold to date can charge on either a standard NEMA 5-15R 110V 15A circuit (every plug in the US home mostly) or using a NEMA 14-50 240V 50A circuit out of the box. The NEMA 14-50 is what's recommended by Tesla and installing one in the home can range in cost, but is mostly cost effective. Further, with the J1772 adapter, you can charge at most public charging facilities.

Now, as for the CHAdeMO connector, I would definitely say that it's worth it. The reason is for public DC charging stations. Most public DC charging stations use CHAdeMO and SAE Combo Port combination. DC charging, while not as fast as a Tesla Supercharger, is pretty close (usually able to do a dead to full charge in about an hours time). In Texas, we have NRG EVGO DC chargers all over the place so having a CHAdeMO connector to use them comes in handy. However, it is definitely not a requirement as even at DC chargers, they normally have a J1772 port. Just note that using J1772 will not give you nearly the charging speed as the CHAdeMO DC port will.

A big thing to keep in mind is that while, yes, you'll spend some money to charge the car in your home (NEMA 14-50's, like I said, can vary in cost but are usually anywhere from $100-1000 for installation; Tesla Wall Chargers have a $750 cost and can be up to $1000 to install), you'll easily make that money back in fuel savings, usually within the first year.

Here's a real world example (I'll use my situation). With my car, the Cadillac ATS 2.0T, it costs me approximately $4 per day each day I go to work. That is derived from my 50 mi. round trip commute in which my car averages 25 mi/g and, at present in Texas, costs me $2 per gallon of premium unleaded (my car requires it). So, for a 5-day work week at 52 weeks per year, I spend approximately $1040 in fuel a year. Now, note that this number doesn't take into account weekends, holidays, additional travel, etc., but it makes the point easier to show. Now, let's evaluate that with a Tesla Model S. On average, the same 50 mi round trip commute would deplete 15 kWh of energy on the battery (approximately). So, to calculate the cost, you take the used energy (15 kWh), divide that by the efficiency rating (AC/DC conversion which is real world around 85% but can be slightly more or less) and then multiply that by your energy cost. So, for me:

15 kWh / .85 (efficiency) x .06 cents per kwh = ~$1.06 per day. So, for the year, it costs me approximately $275 per year, a net savings of $765. 

To put a NEMA 14-50A plug in my home, it will literally cost me $100 (not saying everyone is that cheap, but that is what it costs for me). So, just using the included charger and a recommended NEMA 14-50A, the plug pays for it self in a months time. Heck, 2 years and it would pay for a Tesla permanent wall charger.


----------



## Drew

Since we are on the topic of the batteries and I am new to the whole EV world. What is the life expectancy of the batteries? Do they start to lose juice after 10 years? How expensive will they be to replace?


----------



## TrevP

Drew said:


> Since we are on the topic of the batteries and I am new to the whole EV world. What is the life expectancy of the batteries? Do they start to lose juice after 10 years? How expensive will they be to replace?


This is a common question and very worthy of an answer. Most people's experience with Lithium ion cells come from cell phone exposure where the small battery only lasts 2-3 years. An iPhone 6s battery for example only has about 1750 Mah of power in it with a 1000 cycle count for it's lifetime. A Tesla battery pack on the other hand has 7104 X 3600 Mah cells. That's enough to power an iPhone 24x7 for about 25 years. Therefore the battery degradation in a battery pack of that size is very minimal.

Reports back from users in Norway, the coldest place where Tesla sells cars, have reported about 1-2% decrease in battery capacity per year. Some of them have already put over 200,000 Kms on their cars. Tesla has an 8 year unlimited mile warranty on their battery and drive train and expect 15 years of average usage at which point the battery would still have 70% capacity left.

If the car would be retired at that point then the battery pack would be removed, the cells would then be pulled and reused in stationary storage system (think PowerWall). The cells could then have another 15-20 years of life in them. After that they're recycled. 96% of the cell is recyclable.

To make a long story short, you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Bruce N in CA

During the reveal where the chassis and battery assembly was shown with its 8 modules, I'm puzzled how additional capacity could be physically added - there did not seem to be any space to add 1 or 2 additional modules.

How is capacity added in the S to go from 70 to 90? What am I missing re the 3 on how expansion would be achieved?


----------



## MelindaV

to go along with Drew's question, how long can a car sit, assuming fully charged to begin with, before noticeably beginning to lose the charge? IE leaving it at a long-term airport parking lot for a couple weeks


----------



## Reggie

MelindaV said:


> to go along with Drew's question, how long can a car sit, assuming fully charged to begin with, before noticeably beginning to lose the charge? IE leaving it at a long-term airport parking lot for a couple weeks


It depends on if you remember to enable energy save mode or not, at least on the Model S. With energy save mode on, it shuts down a lot of the electronics leaving just 12V items running. It draws about 1% battery per day. In theory (I've never seen it tried), it could sit for a couple of months without charging and be fine. If you forget to turn that mode on, the car can sit for a couple of weeks before fully depleted.


----------



## Van Shrider

The offsite parking "Park-N-Relax" lot at Cincinnati airport offers free EV charging. At Dayton park-n-ride they charge the night before you arrive,if you valet for the extra $3/day. If you fly frequently you might want to check with the local lots to see what they offer


----------



## Pinewold

My prediction for batteries is a 60kWhr battery with a 250 mile range and a 75kWhr battery with a 301 mile range. Model S will be upgraded to 80kWhr and 100kWhr batteries with 274 mile range and 310 mile ranges


----------



## EV_Future

Also don't forget that charging efficiency increases with power. So 6-20 outlet is less efficient than 14-50 and HPWC with 80 amps is more efficient than 14-50 outlet although by just 0.5%. Tesla has a nice calculator at https://www.teslamotors.com/models-charging#/calculator which you can use to see the difference.


----------



## John Garton

TrevP said:


> Not yet but I'd expect 60Kwh at the minimum. Tesla has pushed Model S capacities from 60 and 85 to 70 and 90 and now leaked firmware information indicates a 100Kwh pack coming in the future. Ostensibly to offer visible spread once the car is announced.
> 
> I'd suspect Model 3 will be 60 as the base and an optional battery pack of say around 80.
> 
> As for range, Elon has said 200 miles (320Km) is the minimum passable range for an EV but most people are looking for about 20% more. I take that to mean around 240Miles (385kms) as a base with the optional battery possibly going as high as 270 miles (434Kms) or so.
> 
> I'm expecting to order the biggest battery when the time comes but it all depends on the cost of the other options, the real range and what our dollar will be trading at in 2018. We're very lucky in Ontario be to able to qualify for the full $14,000 rebate for Model 3 as long as it has 5 seats, which I expect it to have.


Trevor your u-tube covered some great stuff...thank you!!


----------



## John Garton

TrevP said:


> You'd need an 80amp circuit for the HPWC to charge at double the rate... The vast majority of Model S owners have 40amp circuits for charging and it's plenty adequate for overnight charging.


The federal government recently extended a tax credit intended to support installation of Alternative Fuel Infrastructure. This credit is worth up to $1,000 for an individual, or 30% (up to $30,000) for a business


----------



## TrevP

Bruce N in CA said:


> During the reveal where the chassis and battery assembly was shown with its 8 modules, I'm puzzled how additional capacity could be physically added - there did not seem to be any space to add 1 or 2 additional modules.
> 
> How is capacity added in the S to go from 70 to 90? What am I missing re the 3 on how expansion would be achieved?


That is answered in my video blog going up on Friday. But here's a hint: "blanks"


----------



## John Garton

TrevP said:


> That is answered in my video blog going up on Friday. But here's a hint: "blanks"


Video blog, sign me up where Trevor? I m hooked


----------



## TrevP

John Garton said:


> Video blog, sign me up where Trevor? I m hooked


I put them up in here (put the thread on your watchlist)
http://teslaownersonline.com/threads/trevors-model-3-video-blog.55/

But you can also subscribe to my YouTube Channel here

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCry4jW5bcj9DIs7ZwA95Ylw

I'm particularly proud of how the video came out as it explains how Tesla does their batteries compared to the rest of the industry, something that is not widely known.

There's also a bit of fun at Elon's expense too


----------



## John Garton

TrevP said:


> I put them up in here (put the thread on your watchlist)
> http://teslaownersonline.com/threads/trevors-model-3-video-blog.55/
> 
> But you can also subscribe to my YouTube Channel here
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCry4jW5bcj9DIs7ZwA95Ylw
> 
> I'm particularly proud of how the video came out as it explains how Tesla does their batteries compared to the rest of the industry, something that is not widely known.
> 
> There's also a bit of fun at Elon's expense too


I have watched (following on utube) both video clips, with your latest one and joined your club...love this excitement...posted Fed $1000 tax info for doing work on garages etc...the electrician tells me the 14-50 outlet is piece of cake, changing breaker at panel and changing outlet...I have already reserved my personalized plate as pictured, via online at DMV.ca.gov, $48


----------



## MelindaV

John Garton said:


> ...I have already reserved my personalized plate as pictured, via online at DMV.ca.gov, $48


California lets you reserve a plate prior to having a car registered?! Jealous!


----------



## John Garton

Sign up for your current car...then switch to your Tesla when it comes in!


----------



## MelindaV

John Garton said:


> Sign up for your current car...then switch to your Tesla when it comes in!


I probably would but already have custom plates on my current cars


----------



## teslaliving

Pinewold said:


> Thanks, already starting to get nervous about all of the additional costs. Home charger, adapter cable, adapters, possibly super charging. Is CHAdeMO worth $450? All of these options would add up fast.
> 
> I hope that Tesla creates three packages, $35k, $40k and $45k where AWD large battery and super charging come in two higher priced packages.middle package has autopilot and fixed glass roof, Top package has premium sound, premium interior and sunroof. If they try to make every car to order, they will never make it to 300k cars


Tesla includes 3 basic adapters with the UMC in the US: NEMA 14-50, J1772, and NEMA 5-15 (standard US wall outlet).

For the most part thats all you'll ever need. If you run into special cases you may need an extra one which you can get online at Amazon for $40-$50 each. In 2 years i've only bought one of those and it was for an old dryer outlet at my parents to get a faster charge when I visit.

I havent yet bought a Chademo adapter. They've been buggy, the stations are not as reliable as superchargers, and they're not easily found/routed through. I may get one someday but its definitely not needed.

So you can get away with spending nothing extra. My first recommendation is a second UMC though and that does set you back $650 or so.


----------



## Ruby

The Chademo adapter gives us he flexibility to venture off the supercharger grid. We've had really good success with Greenlots and zero success with Blink. I think delivery time has improved since we got ours so just wait until your travels could make use of one. I find it reduces stress. They charge at about 40KW in our experience. That's 1/3 of supercharger peak power but as your battery fills the ratio narrows.


----------



## Van Shrider

teslaliving said:


> The drag coefficient is supposed to be lower than the S. The S60 has 208 rated miles, the Model 3 is supposed to be 215. So with a lower drag coefficient i'd expect a 60kWh or smaller battery in the base version with room for more in the range/performance models.


Teslaliving & TrevP
I think you're right on target with the base model having the 60kWh battery. The competing Bolt has a 60kWh battery boasting a little less range due to greater drag. I can't wait to see the other battery sizes that will be offered on Model 3.. A max range of 300 miles could be obtainable if they can squeeze enough battery in and we add in the dual motors.


----------



## DaGlot

If your watch Trevor's uTube on Tesla Battery tech it is clear the M3 should pack in more energy for less weight. If the M3 drops 20% battery weight per kwh, additional 20% in chassis size reduction, and better drag numbers we could see nice efficiency gains. With AWD which I could use in the hills of my town, 220-225 in the base is not impossible. Can any one of the higher mileage or older model S owners talk about battery efficiency losses. I live in temperate PA ( and MD earlier ). My 2012 (Dec 2011) has lost over 20% - new 85 miles was no problem now 60 is about the average. I had hoped these losses would take longer - heck just finishing the payments this year. ( Yes I get a lease would have been smart. Remember Nissan was making the Leaf after the EV1 debacle. ) Anyway any long term Tesla owners willing to fess on battery loss?


----------



## Ruby

2014 here with 31K miles. I gave up on obsessing about rated miles and display percentage instead. I haven't noticed range loss but I guess it would have to be significant for me to notice. Live in MD. Another reason I switched to percentage is we use the onboard trip estimator (point-to-point) and its in percentage.


----------



## teslaliving

Ive had mine 2 years, 60K miles and have lost 5% range. Doesn't change anything about my use or ability to use the car. From what i've read the range loss is more dramatic in the earlier years and then the drop-off is actually less. We'll see if that holds true.


----------



## TrevP

teslaliving said:


> Ive had mine 2 years, 60K miles and have lost 5% range. Doesn't change anything about my use or ability to use the car. From what i've read the range loss is more dramatic in the earlier years and then the drop-off is actually less. We'll see if that holds true.


The range loss is more pointed at the start then it tapers off. That seems to be the case with respondents to a survey done. I'll have to dig up the diagram. I'm planning a video soon that will discuss battery degradation since it's a question I'm getting a lot of on my YouTube videos.


----------



## Pinewold

teslaliving said:


> Tesla includes 3 basic adapters with the UMC in the US: NEMA 14-50, J1772, and NEMA 5-15 (standard US wall outlet).
> 
> For the most part thats all you'll ever need. If you run into special cases you may need an extra one which you can get online at Amazon for $40-$50 each. In 2 years i've only bought one of those and it was for an old dryer outlet at my parents to get a faster charge when I visit.
> 
> I havent yet bought a Chademo adapter. They've been buggy, the stations are not as reliable as superchargers, and they're not easily found/routed through. I may get one someday but its definitely not needed.
> 
> So you can get away with spending nothing extra. My first recommendation is a second UMC though and that does set you back $650 or so.


Thanks for the great advice, just curious, second so there is one at home and one in the car?


----------



## Ron95030

Pinewold said:


> Hopefully buying 300k of these accessories will dramatically drop the prices. $650 for an extension cord with multiple heads costing $45 each is ok for someone who has $80k - $100k, but at $35k these prices are high and knock offs will come out.


@Reggie It's also unlikely you will need _all_ those adapters. You will need the factory supplied J-1772 adapter, a 14-50 adapter (modern dryer plug) for RV parks and campgrounds, and finally - yes - the venerable 120 Volt plug. It's ubiquitous. (Millions upon millions are in every habitable house in the nation (except in Amish country). Yes, they do come in handy. I charge at 120 V routinely because it's readily available and I don't need more than a small boost most of the time.

FACT: 80-90% of EV charging is done at home. If you live in an apartment or highrise - I'd suggest you talk to the landlord, nicely! 
L2 or Superchargers for long distance travel on the 3 are for more urgent needs. I don't top up every day, usually only every few days.

You will soon know where you'll charge and where park. You may look back in a few years later wondering why you got them. And with a Model 3, chances are you'll have more alternative places which don't use any weird plugs. All these others are increasingly rare which is the beauty of standardized approaches. Tesla even stopped offering some of their other adapters, citing low demand. 
R


----------



## LUXMAN

I posted my reply to this article in another thread. But It might be more appropriate here.



John Garton said:


> Since this thread is about Model 3 budgets, etc, I thought I would share this from green car reports:
> 
> And the report reaches some interesting conclusions.
> 
> Author Randy Carlson predicts three versions of the Model 3.
> 
> **
> *Tesla Model S*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *344: * Entry-level, single-motor, rear-wheel drive version, with a base price of $35,000, EPA range of 220 miles from a 44-kWh battery, and 0-to-60-mph time of 5.6 seconds
> *366D:* Dual-motor AWD standard version with an EPA range of 320 miles from a 66-kWh battery. 0-60 time 4.7 seconds, price $44,000
> *P366D:* 340-hp performance version with dual motors, AWD, a 300-mile EPA range, and 0-to-60 time of 3.1 seconds; priced with leather and a luxury interior at $60,000
> *Obviously nobody really knows options or versions but this is interesting stuff.*


While I think his prices are good estimates, I don't think a 44kw battery pack is gonna do it. The S60 is a big heavy car that is rated at 208 miles. Even though the car is lighter, there is no way it will go further on more than a 25% reduction in battery capacity. It's just just simple physics. The motors that Tesla uses currently draw somewhere in the 300-325 W/mi range to move the S. Using the lower number, 300x220=66,000W, so 66kw. So for the S60, that number looks right on with EPA Estimates. So I personally think it will be a base 60kw battery. As a comparison, my LEAF does 250W/mi, so to achieve those numbers, you would need at least a 55kw pack....plus reserve.

Plus 3.1 seconds? Not gonna happen. I think realistically it will look more like this

*360: * Entry-level, single-motor, rear-wheel drive version, with a base price of $35,000, EPA range of 220 miles from a 60-kWh battery, and 0-to-60-mph time of 5.9 seconds
*375D:* Dual-motor AWD standard version with an EPA range of 280 miles from a 75-kWh battery. 0-60 time 5.0 seconds, price $48,000
(Its the battery that is gonna run up the price. This doesn't include Leather, autopilot or anything else)
_*P75D: *_Performance version with dual motors, AWD, a 260-mile EPA range, and 0-to-60 time of 4.0 seconds; priced with leather $60,000

I posted this in response to another thread, but it might fit better here.


----------



## Pinewold

Ron95030 said:


> @Reggie It's also unlikely you will need _all_ those adapters. You will need the factory supplied J-1772 adapter, a 14-50 adapter (modern dryer plug) for RV parks and campgrounds, and finally - yes - the venerable 120 Volt plug. It's ubiquitous. (Millions upon millions are in every habitable house in the nation (except in Amish country). Yes, they do come in handy. I charge at 120 V routinely because it's readily available and I don't need more than a small boost most of the time.
> 
> FACT: 80-90% of EV charging is done at home. If you live in an apartment or highrise - I'd suggest you talk to the landlord, nicely!
> L2 or Superchargers for long distance travel on the 3 are for more urgent needs. I don't top up every day, usually only every few days.
> 
> You will soon know where you'll charge and where park. You may look back in a few years later wondering why you got them. And with a Model 3, chances are you'll have more alternative places which don't use any weird plugs. All these others are increasingly rare which is the beauty of standardized approaches. Tesla even stopped offering some of their other adapters, citing low demand.
> R


I have heard Model S owners say they only use s Super charger once a month. I have a couple of destinations that are a bit off the beaten path, it sounds like the 14-50 will serve them well. I have a garage but will need to run a circuit for the car so only debate is 14-50 outlet vs. Wall Connector. (Prices are getting closer since the drop in price) and cable looks thicker on the wall connector in case someone drives over it. Quick quote from electrician was basically same cost either way. Although it sound like you need dual chargers to get real benefits for the wall connector. Not even sure 3 will have a dual charger option. Was hoping the automated snake would be available!


----------



## Pinewold

LUXMAN said:


> I posted my reply to this article in another thread. But It might be more appropriate here.
> 
> While I think his prices are good estimates, I don't think a 44kw battery pack is gonna do it. The S60 is a big heavy car that is rated at 208 miles. Even though the car is lighter, there is no way it will go further on more than a 25% reduction in battery capacity. It's just just simple physics. The motors that Tesla uses currently draw somewhere in the 300-325 W/mi range to move the S. Using the lower number, 300x220=66,000W, so 66kw. So for the S60, that number looks right on with EPA Estimates. So I personally think it will be a base 60kw battery. As a comparison, my LEAF does 250W/mi, so to achieve those numbers, you would need at least a 55kw pack....plus reserve.
> 
> Plus 3.1 seconds? Not gonna happen. I think realistically it will look more like this
> 
> *360: * Entry-level, single-motor, rear-wheel drive version, with a base price of $35,000, EPA range of 220 miles from a 60-kWh battery, and 0-to-60-mph time of 5.9 seconds
> *375D:* Dual-motor AWD standard version with an EPA range of 280 miles from a 75-kWh battery. 0-60 time 5.0 seconds, price $48,000
> (Its the battery that is gonna run up the price. This doesn't include Leather, autopilot or anything else)
> _*P75D: *_Performance version with dual motors, AWD, a 260-mile EPA range, and 0-to-60 time of 4.0 seconds; priced with leather $60,000
> 
> I posted this in response to another thread, but it might fit better here.


Looking at Audi and BMW prices, these seem high. The CTO specifically mentioned an Audi A4 as a target vehicle. I like the numbering scheme 360,375D, though P375D is more likely). I agree with your assessments of the battery sizes. (60kWhr,75kWhr) based on Model S getting 75kWhr and 100kWhr before the 3 is released.


----------



## LUXMAN

Pinewold said:


> Looking at Audi and BMW prices, these seem high. The CTO specifically mentioned an Audi A4 as a target vehicle. I like the numbering scheme 360,375D, though P375D is more likely). I agree with your assessments of the battery sizes. (60kWhr,75kWhr) based on Model S getting 75kWhr and 100kWhr before the 3 is released.


Oops. Yes I meant P375D.
Regarding the pricing tho. I think the Dual motor will come in as a $3000-4,000 upgrade based on Elon's statements.
I figured the Battery would be $9000 to $10000. I came at this since the upgrade on the S is $13k for 20kw. That is $650 per KW! So 15x650 is 9750. So if the factory is making packs, $9k would be my assumption.
Performance adds $20k on the S. Since this won't be that fast I was thinking maybe $10k and $2k for Leather


----------



## MelindaV

The S/X are priced assuming their batteries are purchased from Panasonic and others, correct? So once the Gigafactory is pushing out batteries, wouldn't it stand to reason that the battery price savings Tesla will create with the Gigafactory may trickle down to the vehicle's battery upgrade prices? I think I remember seeing Tesla expecting they will be able to reduce battery prices by >30% by 2017 by doing the manufacturing.


----------



## AEDennis

MelindaV said:


> The S/X are priced assuming their batteries are purchased from Panasonic and others, correct? So once the Gigafactory is pushing out batteries, wouldn't it stand to reason that the battery price savings Tesla will create with the Gigafactory may trickle down to the vehicle's battery upgrade prices? I think I remember seeing Tesla expecting they will be able to reduce battery prices by >30% by 2017 by doing the manufacturing.


I think that is a logical assumption. My understanding is that Tesla does have a partnership if not a JV with Panasonic for the gigafactory in 

"In cooperation with Panasonic and other strategic partners, the Gigafactory will produce batteries for significantly less cost using economies of scale, innovative manufacturing, reduction of waste, and the simple optimization of locating most manufacturing process under one roof. We expect to drive down the per kilowatt hour (kWh) cost of our battery pack by more than 30 percent. The Gigafactory will also be powered by renewable energy sources, with the goal of achieving net zero energy."


----------



## LUXMAN

I hope that is case, but as with anything, things can take longer than expected . I am hoping the production can be on time and the battery output starts in time as well, as I am sure there is a great urgency there right now.


----------



## Pinewold

LUXMAN said:


> Oops. Yes I meant P375D.
> Regarding the pricing tho. I think the Dual motor will come in as a $3000-4,000 upgrade based on Elon's statements.
> I figured the Battery would be $9000 to $10000. I came at this since the upgrade on the S is $13k for 20kw. That is $650 per KW! So 15x650 is 9750. So if the factory is making packs, $9k would be my assumption.
> Performance adds $20k on the S. Since this won't be that fast I was thinking maybe $10k and $2k for Leather


Hoping the gigafactory cuts 30% off based on scale/ new bigger cell form factor, plus another 5% for chemistry improvements so less than $6500. Based on competitive offers from Audi and BMW, AWD should be less than $3k so the two of them could be $10K with glass roof  Add autopilot and premium sound/interior for $48k matching top end Audi A4 Quattro. Anything over 50k sends folks to the Used Model S market and Gives up huge percentage of the market - people buying a $35k car might add $10k of options, but adding $15k-$20k is another whole car. Your goal is to compete head to head with Audi and BMW. While they have high end models, they sell many more of mid-price models.


----------



## LUXMAN

We can hope


----------



## TrevP

MelindaV said:


> The S/X are priced assuming their batteries are purchased from Panasonic and others, correct? So once the Gigafactory is pushing out batteries, wouldn't it stand to reason that the battery price savings Tesla will create with the Gigafactory may trickle down to the vehicle's battery upgrade prices? I think I remember seeing Tesla expecting they will be able to reduce battery prices by >30% by 2017 by doing the manufacturing.


That is assuming that Tesla will make the same 18650 cell format used by Model S and Model X in the Gigafactiry and I've not heard anyone at Tesla say that. They've only said the Model 3 battery cells, which are larger, are going to be made in the Gigafactory.


----------



## AEDennis

TrevP said:


> That is assuming that Tesla will make the same 18650 cell format used by Model S and Model X in the Gigafactiry and I've not heard anyone at Tesla say that. They've only said the Model 3 battery cells, which are larger, are going to be made in the Gigafactory.


I seem to remember that the Power Wall uses the same cells as S and X, and I believe that the operational part of the Nevada Gigafactory (I'm being optimistic that this is the first of many, as introduced by Elon in the original launch) is already building Power Walls...

So, yup, I believe that 18650s are also produced there. I will find and include citations when I run across them, in the meantime, this is from my memory.


----------



## TrevP

AEDennis said:


> I seem to remember that the Power Wall uses the same cells as S and X, and I believe that the operational part of the Nevada Gigafactory (I'm being optimistic that this is the first of many, as introduced by Elon in the original launch) is already building Power Walls...
> 
> So, yup, I believe that 18650s are also produced there. I will find and include citations when I run across them, in the meantime, this is from my memory.


Yes,the Powerwalls and the PowerPacks are being assembled in the Gigafactory. However no cell production itself has started there yet. All the 18650 cells Tesla uses are made by Panasonic in Japan. Some of them are shipped to the Gigafactory for assembly into Powerwall modules but the lions share used for car battery modules are assembled in the Fremont plant for cars.


----------



## AEDennis

TrevP said:


> Yes,the Powerwalls and the PowerPacks are being assembled in the Gigafactory. However no cell production itself has started there yet. All the 18650 cells Tesla uses are made by Panasonic in Japan. Some of them are shipped to the Gigafactory for assembly into Powerwall modules but the lions share used for car battery modules are assembled in the Fremont plant for cars.


Would not be the first time that my memory has failed me... Mine of the benefits of being "mature and married". I know that I've been wrong and how often I've been wrong.


----------



## LUXMAN

AEDennis said:


> Would not be the first time that my memory has failed me... Mine of the benefits of being "mature and married". I know that I've been wrong and how often I've been wrong.


LOL!!!! I know how that is!


----------



## MelindaV

here's a link to a PDF Tesla put out on the Gigafactory some time ago. No idea if they are still tracking the progress this outlines.


----------



## Saz'sTM3

MelindaV said:


> here's a link to a PDF Tesla put out on the Gigafactory some time ago. No idea if they are still tracking the progress this outlines.


Thanks for the PDF link, MelindaV!!


----------



## Van Shrider

MelindaV said:


> The S/X are priced assuming their batteries are purchased from Panasonic and others, correct? So once the Gigafactory is pushing out batteries, wouldn't it stand to reason that the battery price savings Tesla will create with the Gigafactory may trickle down to the vehicle's battery upgrade prices? I think I remember seeing Tesla expecting they will be able to reduce battery prices by >30% by 2017 by doing the manufacturing.


It's a partnership of sorts with Panasonic. In an interview, Elon said that Panasonic will have their own area in the Gigafactory where they will make the individual cells, then a robocart takes them to Tesla's battery pack production line. The cells may not be 18650 as Trevor pointed out earlier.
As far as the costs, it is expected to be a lot less than today's prices because of the local cell production synergies. The key thing is the cost of lithium and cobalt.
Per the other thread in this forum you can read about the lithium positioning, but I haven't seen anything about the cobalt yet.

Old but good articles on the topic 
http://www.hybridcars.com/tesla-projects-battery-costs-could-drop-to-100kwh-by-2020/

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/05...hour-holy-grail-ev-batteries-report-predicts/


----------



## Badback

Ruby said:


> The Chademo adapter gives us he flexibility to venture off the supercharger grid. We've had really good success with Greenlots and zero success with Blink. I think delivery time has improved since we got ours so just wait until your travels could make use of one. I find it reduces stress. They charge at about 40KW in our experience. That's 1/3 of supercharger peak power but as your battery fills the ratio narrows.


I could not find a map of Greenlots chargers online, are they keeping it a secret?


----------



## AEDennis

Badback said:


> I could not find a map of Greenlots chargers online, are they keeping it a secret?


They have an app. Additionally, as with most networks, Plugshare or Openchargemap is your friend...


----------



## Gman

John Garton said:


> I have watched (following on utube) both video clips, with your latest one and joined your club...love this excitement...posted Fed $1000 tax info for doing work on garages etc...the electrician tells me the 14-50 outlet is piece of cake, changing breaker at panel and changing outlet...I have already reserved my personalized plate as pictured, via online at DMV.ca.gov, $48


John, can you elaborate more (again) on the "Fed $1000 tax info for doing work on garages". I think I missed that. 
Thanks in advanced.


----------



## Ruby

AEDennis said:


> They have an app. Additionally, as with most networks, Plugshare or Openchargemap is your friend...


I use Greenlots' app and Plugshare.


----------



## John Garton

Gman said:


> John, can you elaborate more (again) on the "Fed $1000 tax info for doing work on garages". I think I missed that.
> Thanks in advanced.


Don't know how much I can elaborate on it but if you do work on your home in preparation for an EV you may qualify for a $1000 tax credit. My understanding is that it was extended last year but can't confirm this.


----------



## John Garton

Gman said:


> John, can you elaborate more (again) on the "Fed $1000 tax info for doing work on garages". I think I missed that.
> Thanks in advanced.


The EV infrastructure TAX CREDIT has been extended through 2016 (source is www.afdc.energy.gov) and is $1000 for consumers, 30% up to 30,000 for businesses. The way I understand this is if you need to do some work to your home/garage etc. You may qualify as a consumer for a $1000 tax credit. Hope this helps.


----------



## Jorge castillo

What is the battery made off ? Nickel and lithium ?


----------



## Van Shrider

Jorge castillo said:


> What is the battery made off ? Nickel and lithium ?


Typically, lithium-ion NCA batteries use a combination of 80% nickel, 15% cobalt and 5% aluminum. It's unclear what mix Tesla and Panasonic's battery combination is. (The anodes in these traditional lithium-ion batteries is usually a graphite combination, which acts as a host for the lithium ions.) The addition of the aluminum to the NCA battery makes it more stable.

Tesla has a guy that they call the "Mad Scientist" that works on nothing but batteries and continues to work on battery chemistry .... And now he has the help of a materials expert that used to work for Apple. Who could work on alloys and help with battery tech.
So we might have something more advanced than what is being used today in the Model 3. They have already said that the 3 will use a wider battery cell.


----------



## Jorge castillo

Van Shrider said:


> Typically, lithium-ion NCA batteries use a combination of 80% nickel, 15% cobalt and 5% aluminum. It's unclear what mix Tesla and Panasonic's battery combination is. (The anodes in these traditional lithium-ion batteries is usually a graphite combination, which acts as a host for the lithium ions.) The addition of the aluminum to the NCA battery makes it more stable.
> 
> Tesla has a guy that they call the "Mad Scientist" that works on nothing but batteries and continues to work on battery chemistry .... And now he has the help of a materials expert that used to work for Apple. Who could work on alloys and help with battery tech.
> So we might have something more advanced than what is being used today in the Model 3. They have already said that the 3 will use a wider battery cell.


Nice,I was reading article on lithium wars and price skyrocketing due to the model 3, but I also read an article stating model 3 batteries are mainly nickel so I was confused lol


----------



## Ken Hixson

I understand the Gigafactory is specifically to reduce the cost of battery to about $150 kWh. While that will not be immediate I would expect $200 - $250 kWh by the time Model 3 starts production. That should greatly reduce the additional battery cost. All speculation at this point!


----------



## Van Shrider

Ken Hixson said:


> I understand the Gigafactory is specifically to reduce the cost of battery to about $150 kWh. While that will not be immediate I would expect $200 - $250 kWh by the time Model 3 starts production. That should greatly reduce the additional battery cost. All speculation at this point!


Ben Kallo at equity analyst firm RW Baird believes that Tesla's current battery costs are ~$150 to ~$200 per kilowatt-hour, well below the industry average pack costs of ~$350 per kilowatt-hour (as estimated by Bloomberg New Energy Finance). Kallo suggests that the Chevy Bolt's battery costs "are significantly higher" than those of Tesla.

Kallo suggests that Tesla "could reach its <$100 per kilowatt-hour target in the intermediate term as Gigafactory production ramps." He continued, "Additionally, we believe TSLA is ahead of expectations on reducing battery costs, and continues to have a significant lead on competing EVs."

More on the details to be found here http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...Battery-Cell-Cost-Below-100-per-Kilowatt-Hour


----------



## LUXMAN

If that really is the case, the upgrade in battery size might not cost too much. Fingers crossed!
It is a interesting little article but he makes a reference to the difference between the cost of cells vs. "packs", yet goes on to intermix/confuse the point. 
Either way, economies of scale are helpful, so PACK prices should come down significantly.

Also, a 'to do' is being made about the run up in Litium prices. But as stated earlier in the thread, there isn't that much Litium in the pack. Am I right on that? And will the costs hurt the reduction in CELL costs?
I think I read somewhere that TESLA had a volume deal for Lithium.


----------



## TrevP

Jorge castillo said:


> What is the battery made off ? Nickel and lithium ?


The battery cells are made of vairous metals and elements such as nickel, lithium, cobalt, silicon etc...

Most people think that because it's called a Lithium ion battery that's the only element in there.

In actuality there's between 113g of lithium or 246g of Lithium Carbonate (Lithium and carbon mix) per kWh for cathode batteries with all graphite anodes and we know Tesla is using more advanced anodes with graphite/silicon anodes.

Worst case scenario, a 90Kwh Tesla battery pack contains about 10Kg of Lithium or 22Kg of Lithium carbonate. Not much when the whole battery weighs 1200Lbs. The rest is just metal and aluminum.

People get so worked up about how much lithium in is these things is because they're not educated. Manufacturers are not really going out of their way to educate the public about what makes up batteries. Visions of deep strip mining are totally inaccurate.

Most lithium is found in brine deposits:
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/lithium-key-ingredient-powering-todays-technology/


----------



## LUXMAN

Thank you for the link Trevor! It is a good read for those with not allot of time. Plus in case anyone missed it, this link at the end of the story is also very informative
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/lithium-key-ingredient-powering-todays-technology/


----------



## xxZULAxx

I just ran across this article, looks like they just figured out how to make lithium ion battery last whole lot longer then we thought possible and from what i read it is rather not that complicated.

https://news.uci.edu/research/all-powered-up/


----------



## Gman

John Garton said:


> Don't know how much I can elaborate on it but if you do work on your home in preparation for an EV you may qualify for a $1000 tax credit. My understanding is that it was extended last year but can't confirm this.


Thanks John


----------



## Skione65

So what is the biggest size battery that you think will be offered in the Model 3? I absolutely need the largest capacity battery to even make this purchase viable due to my commute lengths. 

I am now under the assumption after the latest news that we will probably see a Base 3 of 55Khw and an upgrade of 75 Khw.....or possibly a 60Khw/75Khw, 60Khw/80Khw.

Largest Battery Option is my Number One upgrade.....absolute necessity.

Ski


----------



## Skione65

So.....this is good news and bodes well. According to the Motor Trend Article released today:

"the volume of the battery case might only be 6 percent smaller, suggesting room for as much as 80 kW-hrs at Tesla’s current energy density—or potentially a 260-mile range."

I'd be 'ALL OVER' an 80 kWh Model 3. Maybe my guess of a 60 kWh Base and 80kwh Updgrade Pack was correct! 
Of course that was in all honesty my second feeling (preferred choice though) after my 55 kWh Base and 75 kWh Upgrade Pack - post announcement from Tesla of a 'smaller than 60 kWh battery'. 

I'd still rather have (and am fervently praying) for a 60 kWh base and 80 kWh Upgrade Pack! (Elon?) Please?

Ski


----------



## MelindaV

and all calculated 'based on Tesla's current energy density'... so if the rumors of them able to store more in the same amount of space is true, what we know as a 55 (or 60) 80, 90 may all have to be re-thought.


----------



## LUXMAN

Big is better! Size really does matter in case 
Some may not wanna stretch the budget, but must also think of eventual capacity losses.


----------



## Englander

Skione65 said:


> So.....this is good news and bodes well. According to the Motor Trend Article released today:
> 
> "the volume of the battery case might only be 6 percent smaller, suggesting room for as much as 80 kW-hrs at Tesla's current energy density-or potentially a 260-mile range.


If they're right with the 6% smaller figure, and Tesla do launch the rumoured 100kWh battery pack on the S/X, then potentially we could be looking at a biggest battery on the 3 of 94kWh!

So by the time it's out, Model 3 might offer 55, 75 and 95kWh pack options!

Bring it on...


----------



## Pinewold

Remember that batteries may be a critical resource. The good news is that thanks to an aerodynamic CD of .21 even a 75kWhr battery may enough to get 260 or more miles.


----------



## Skione65

All....in all......if I can get an Upgraded Battery Pack with a range that approaches 250-300 miles.....(300 preferably) I'll be ecstatic. My reasoning applies to the fact of Winter Range Degradation....and WITH the degradation I still need a minimum range of 200 miles. I can probably make the "215" quoted by Elon work but after cold soaking in an airport parking lot for 4 days in the Winter and NOT being able to 'plug in' to Preheat and warm the battery I'll be hard pressed I think to make it home with winter range loss.

Ski


----------



## Pinewold

Consider for 75kWHr = 292 miles based on 55kWhr=215 miles. 

If Elon saved any increase in range for Reveal 2,(he has hinted that 240 miles is his minimum for a capable car) the large battery could get you over 300 miles which would be huge!


----------



## Skione65

Pinewold said:


> Consider for 75kWHr = 292 miles based on 55kWhr=215 miles.
> 
> If Elon saved any increase in range for Reveal 2,(he has hinted that 240 miles is his minimum for a capable car) the large battery could get you over 300 miles which would be huge!


@Pinewold,

I would be ecstatic if this turns out to be the case. This is what I'm hoping for. As well this IS the EV (range-wise) as well as looks AND engineering that I've been waiting for for over a decade! Anything over 200 is great but numbers approaching 300 is my Dream Come True and stats that I require. I'll be a happy camper! 

Ski


----------



## Pinewold

Skione65 said:


> @Pinewold,
> 
> I would be ecstatic if this turns out to be the case. This is what I'm hoping for. As well this IS the EV (range-wise) as well as looks AND engineering that I've been waiting for for over a decade! Anything over 200 is great but numbers approaching 300 is my Dream Come True and stats that I require. I'll be a happy camper!
> 
> Ski


Will probably require AWD and 65 mph to get those numbers.

I will be very happy too!

Low cost Batteries are a competitive advantage for Tesla, so they have some incentive to raise the bar for other manufacturers. Batteries also let Tesla put bigger motors for better performance.

100kWhr battery will keep Model S and X ahead so Tesla's high end will be preserved.

Finally bigger batteries charge faster so they really are the key to a great EV!


----------



## John

Hey, I keep wondering if someone has counted the bumps on the 8 battery packs shown at the reveal and estimated the maximum capacity in the 3. I'm not a Tesla battery expert, but it seems like every "bump" is a thermal turn-around at the end of two rows of staggered cells. Seems like somebody would have estimated that by now. Anybody heard? I know the analysts all want that number, just like I do...


----------



## TrevP

*Interesting tidbit today:*

As I had predicted some time ago, Elon confirmed today during the annual shareholders meeting that the Gigfactory will be making a new 20700 cell. This cell size corroborates statements made by Elon and JB in the past that Model 3 would have approximately a 10% larger cell than the 18650 in order to provide about 33% more capacity by volume.


----------



## Skione65

TrevP said:


> *Interesting tidbit today:*
> 
> As I had predicted some time ago, Elon confirmed today during the annual shareholders meeting that the Gigfactory will be making a new 20700 cell. This cell size corroborates statements made by Elon and JB in the past that Model 3 would have approximately a 10% larger cell than the 18650 in order to provide about 33% more capacity by volume.


@TrevP,

This is good news! Especially for range which is my main concern.

Ski


----------



## John

The packaging (20700 vs 18650) is interesting, and I really want to know how the change affects cost and energy density. I'd love to hear that they think the entire pack will cost, say, $160/kWh built out. And that they can fit 75kWh between the wheels of the 3 for a very reasonable up-charge. Imagine $4000 of added cost for a 25kWh upgrade that they charge you $6000 for, for instance. Something along those lines...


----------



## MelindaV

John Beans said:


> The packaging (20700 vs 18650) is interesting, and I really want to know how the change affects cost and energy density. I'd love to hear that they think the entire pack will cost, say, $160/kWh built out. And that they can fit 75kWh between the wheels of the 3 for a very reasonable up-charge. Imagine $4000 of added cost for a 25kWh upgrade that they charge you $6000 for, for instance. Something along those lines...


keep in mind, the current Model S jump from 70 to 90 is $13,000. I do expect the extra battery size on the Model 3 will be less $ than the S/X, but $6,000 may be a little optimistic for 25kWh. That would equal out to 36.9% of the current upgrade's value.


----------



## John

True, optimistic. But I also think that scale is *everything* in a fixed-cost business like this. Tesla has a lot of overhead (for its current size) to absorb, which is what makes it look a little doggy financially at the moment. But assuming the current cost structure (soon) can support very high volumes, then profits get pumped out, even at 20% gross margins.

You can't really compare the economics of low-scale production (such as what the absolute price of any option needs to be) to what the 3 will experience. And the goal is mass market acceptance.


----------



## MelindaV

it has been reported they are expecting a 30% savings on the batteries by the time the Model 3 is rolled out.


----------



## MelindaV

TrevP said:


> *Interesting tidbit today:*
> 
> As I had predicted some time ago, Elon confirmed today during the annual shareholders meeting that the Gigfactory will be making a new 20700 cell. This cell size corroborates statements made by Elon and JB in the past that Model 3 would have approximately a 10% larger cell than the 18650 in order to provide about 33% more capacity by volume.


also from the meeting today, estimating the gigafactory will be able to produce* 3x *as much as originally planned. so instead of 35gWh -> 105gWh! (but a higher total percentage going to the powerwalls)


----------



## Dan Detweiler

All of this is good news. Just HOW good remains to be seen.

Dan


----------



## LUXMAN

TrevP said:


> *Interesting tidbit today:*
> 
> As I had predicted some time ago, Elon confirmed today during the annual shareholders meeting that the Gigfactory will be making a new 20700 cell. This cell size corroborates statements made by Elon and JB in the past that Model 3 would have approximately a 10% larger cell than the 18650 in order to provide about 33% more capacity by volume.


So just how does one get 33% more capacity in 10% more volume?


----------



## Dan Detweiler

LUXMAN said:


> So just how does one get 33% more capacity in 10% more volume?


I would assume improved battery chemistry?

Dan


----------



## Englander

LUXMAN said:


> So just how does one get 33% more capacity in 10% more volume?


I think they're saying the cell _size _is roughly 10% bigger in both directions, hence an approximate 33% increase in volume.

The current cells are 18mm diameter by 65mm long, whereas the new cells are 20mm diameter by 70mm long.

The volume of the old cell is 16540 cubic mm, and the new cell volume is 21991 cubic mm, so an increase of roughly 33% 

I'm sure there will also be a gain from improved battery chemistry, so the overall gain per cell might be in the order of 40%


----------



## LUXMAN

Ok. That works for me! 
That also explains the name of the cell. Thanks


----------



## TrevP

LUXMAN said:


> So just how does one get 33% more capacity in 10% more volume?


No, they said 10% large in size in both dimensions. Volumes is the square of that, thus ~33% more capacity. Combined with slight chemistry improvements, mass local volume production and no import or shipping costs results in at least a 30% cost savings on the cells.

Because of the smaller battery pack on the 3 they had to make bigger cells. Bigger cells also mean you don't need as many which simplifies the cooling and management systems and results in a lower cost pack.

Like they said, everything about Model 3 was rethought from the ground up for cost savings and manufacturing on a mass scale and that includes the cells and chemistry involved.


----------



## Topher

TrevP said:


> This cell size corroborates statements made by Elon and JB in the past that Model 3 would have approximately a 10% larger cell than the 18650 in order to provide about 33% more capacity by volume.





TrevP said:


> No, they said 10% large in size in both dimensions. Volumes is the square of that, thus ~33% more capacity.


While it is 33% more capacity (if you cube it, rather than square it), it is NOT 33% more *by volume*. The capacity per volume wouldn't change at all in your example.

There is presumably some reason that they are increasing the size of the cell. One suggestion I heard, is the the actual volumetric capacity is increased in a larger size, but I don't have a confirmation of that. Another is that the height increase allows more capacity with the same footprint, and the increased height is basically unnoticed. (Diameter adjustment would be to keep the aspect ratio at some fixed point for battery reasons.)

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Englander

Topher said:


> While it is 33% more capacity (if you cube it, rather than square it), it is NOT 33% more *by volume*. The capacity per volume wouldn't change at all in your example.
> 
> There is presumably some reason that they are increasing the size of the cell. One suggestion I heard, is the the actual volumetric capacity is increased in a larger size, but I don't have a confirmation of that. Another is that the height increase allows more capacity with the same footprint, and the increased height is basically unnoticed. (Diameter adjustment would be to keep the aspect ratio at some fixed point for battery reasons.)
> 
> Thank you kindly.


See my post #111. The volume of the new cells is around 33% more.


----------



## Topher

Englander said:


> See my post #111. The volume of the new cells is around 33% more.


Reread my post, and see that I understand that.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## LUXMAN

TrevP said:


> No, they said 10% large in size in both dimensions. Volumes is the square of that, thus ~33% more capacity. Combined with slight chemistry improvements, mass local volume production and no import or shipping costs results in at least a 30% cost savings on the cells.
> 
> Because of the smaller battery pack on the 3 they had to make bigger cells. Bigger cells also mean you don't need as many which simplifies the cooling and management systems and results in a lower cost pack.
> 
> Like they said, everything about Model 3 was rethought from the ground up for cost savings and manufacturing on a mass scale and that includes the cells and chemistry involved.


So if the volume is 33% bigger and a 33% increase in energy over the 18650 plus a small increase in energy density due to better tech, what is the size savings really? Yes some simplification but really is it just gonna be a scaled down S pack with bigger cells that just reduces their number? Get my drift?


----------



## LUXMAN

Guess with some of the volume being in height, you can get more in the same horizontal space


----------



## John

The only thing you can read into the switch to the 20700 format is that Tesla is optimizing for production cost.

There's a tradeoff between making lots of smaller batteries and fewer larger batteries. To Tesla's calculations, 20700 is a "sweet spot" where making them bigger or smaller is worse for cost. We don't know all of the factors they considered, but thermal management, yield losses during automated manufacturing, and assembly cost are certainly among them. Also, the cost of anodes and cathodes has its own size-related dynamics.

These cells will be made on (very expensive) Panasonic coating and rolling machines, presumably at impressive rates. Elon noted that in the Shareholders' Meeting.

You can't read into the format switch that the car will get more range or have more power. But the cost of that range and of that power will be substantially less than in the past.

I read into this (and other cost-related moves) that the battery upgrade won't cost anything like the $13K that it does in the S.


----------



## Badback

Battery volume is not relevant. The battery is rolled up into a cylinder. Capacity is a function of the cell area, the height and width of the cell if you unrolled it.
We don't know the thickness of the cell or the diameter of the hole in the middle of the roll, we also do not know the dimensions of the contact strips on the edges of the cell, so we cannot calculate the increase in cell capacity.

But my guess is 20%.

See: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51723.html


----------



## John

Here's a closer look at a cutaway of an 18650 battery from a study conducted on fires in electric cars.
(Source: http://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/2/2/9/htm)









As you can see, the effective "core" is 4mm. There are 16 turns of material here, going out to an outside diameter of perhaps 16.4mm diameter. By turning the ruler sideways (not shown), I estimate there is 8mm of "non-battery" height to each cell.

Assuming that the added 5mm of height and 2mm of diameter can be applied to the roll (a safe assumption if the core and can are the same), we can ratio the before and after:

Before
D^2 - C^2 = (16.4^2 - 4^2) = 253

After
(18.4^2 - 4^2) = 322.5
x height change (62mm-57mm)/57mm = 351

So the improvement would be (351-253)/253 = *39%
*
But like I said earlier, this doesn't matter for anything other than manufacturing cost, and however it helps current and cycle durability. You don't know how many of these they plan to use, or what they plan to charge us for them. It's just a different shape that works better for manufacturing. Which is good.


----------



## TrevP

Elon did mention a couple of years ago their modelling determined that a 10% size increase (20700 format) would yield the best combination of extra capacity and lower production costs. Combine that with slightly better chemistry, economies of scale (Gigafactory), a new completely new battery pack design and they can achieve at least a 30% cost reduction in the battery pack as a whole for the Model 3.

These guys are not fools, they've done the design work and studies to get to their prices they need. The format in the end matters not, it's the cost reductions from the batteries, a completely new design and pretty much a total rethink of how they produce cars that makes the Model 3 half the cost of a Model S.

Over time costs will come down even more and allow for even lower cost cars. This I'm sure of.


----------



## Topher

Badback said:


> Battery volume is not relevant. The battery is rolled up into a cylinder. Capacity is a function of the cell area, the height and width of the cell if you unrolled it.


Well if you have figured out a way to roll stuff into a cylinder, where the volume *isn't* a function of the height, width and thickness of the material, I have some great applications for that.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## JWardell

Don't forget that the real capacity difference depends on packaging of the battery pack. The 20700 cells might have 33+% more volume than 18650 but they are all packaged into a rectangular battery. The new cells take up more space, so you can't have quite as many. But that means less wasted space between the cells too. The final energy capacity per volume of battery pack will depend on their final pack design.


----------



## garsh

Topher said:


> Well if you have figured out a way to roll stuff into a cylinder, where the volume *isn't* a function of the height, width and thickness of the material, I have some great applications for that.


You have to account for the thickness of the layers (and therefore, the number of layers) of the rolled sheet, and the gap left in the middle of the cylinders from rolling up the sheets. The cylinder is just the shape that they're rolling the sheets into, and in itself is not as relevant as the area of the sheets.


----------



## John

Don't get too caught up in the geometry of the cells. I did the calcs elsewhere, it's a 39% increase of energy by my calcs, based on detailed analysis of rolled sheet material. But that increase per cell doesn't mean anything, except as it pertains to lower total manufacturing cost / kWh.


----------



## John

Okay, if you want per volume energy density:

1. Previous: 253/V1 = 253/(pi*9^2*65) = 0.015295 (stuff/mm^2)
2. New: 351/V2 = 351/(pi*10^2*70) = 0.015961

So final volumetric energy density is 4% better. 39% more energy, but 33% more volume, makes sense. Nothing exciting.

However, I will be excited when they say this new cell is 30% cheaper to crank out than before, and that the bigger battery option will cost $6,500 (my guess).


----------



## Badback

Topher said:


> Well if you have figured out a way to roll stuff into a cylinder, where the volume *isn't* a function of the height, width and thickness of the material, I have some great applications for that.
> 
> Thank you kindly.


 My point is that you cannot calculate the increase in capacity based on the increase in volume.


----------



## TrevP

I had to dig up an old post I made elsewhere about cell sizes and found it.

TSLA Q2 2014 transcript here:
Tesla Q2 Conference Call: Model X, Gigafactory Site, Improved Battery Chemistry + Model S Drivetrain Issues

See section: Will Gigafactory Batteries Have a Different Chemistry?

Audio is here:
EarningsCast - Q2 2014 Tesla Mtrs Inc Earnings Conference call
Fast forward to about 24 minutes in.

Elon:
_"We've done a lot of modeling trying to figure out what's the optimal cell size. And it's really not much, it is not a lot different from where we are right now, but we're sort of in the roughly 10% more diameter; maybe 10% more height. But then since the cubic function effectively ends up being, just from a geometry standpoint, probably a third more energy for the cell,well maybe 30%ish - then the actual energy density per unit mass increases"_


----------



## John

That corroborates. Obviously, he's not giving exact figures. We know for a fact that the volume goes up by exactly 33%, since we know the exact dimensions of the old and new cell. So the energy content MUST go up by more than that if the density is to improve. I estimated that the energy content went up by 39% by studying sheet construction, for a total energy density increase of 4%.

He's not using the real energy content figures (he must have forgot, or was being coy), because any energy content increase below 33% would decrease the energy density.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

If the M3 is on 20700 battery - and that is the best they have.....would you expect future Ms and MX to come out on that format also? Further, does that make current MS and MX battery packs (soon to be) orphan products?


----------



## John

It's what they'll be making. It's what will be cheapest. All future packs will have it. They'll cut over at some point. But there will always be sources of 18650 batteries for legacy packs if they can't retrofit and need them.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

John Beans said:


> It's what they'll be making. It's what will be cheapest. All future packs will have it. They'll cut over at some point. But there will always be sources of 18650 batteries for legacy packs if they can't retrofit and need them.


Ahh - "legacy pack"...I like that term better than Orphan. Means the same, just a nicer ring!!


----------



## TrevP

If they switch they will have to reengineer the packs. You can't just swap out the smaller cells for larger ones. Everything inside has to readjusted and changed.


----------



## MelindaV

I was wondering if the recent imported batteries were for testing purposes for the 'legacy' packs and would eventually source a supply of them from a non-gigafactory supplier, while keeping the giagactory cell form factor the 'new' size.


----------



## TrevP

As far as I know the Gigafactory will be making the 20700 cells for Model 3 at least initially. The recent batteries imported from other makers as I understand could be destined for PowerWall and PowerPacks being assembled at the factory.


----------



## AEDennis

I expect future packs for older Teslas to be in the 20700 at some point in the future. I did not expect the Roadster 3.0 package, so, there's that... Perhaps the new battery, when they cut over will be offered as a pack upgrade to classic S and X owners.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

AEDennis said:


> I expect future packs for older Teslas to be in the 20700 at some point in the future. I did not expect the Roadster 3.0 package, so, there's that... Perhaps the new battery, when they cut over will be offered as a pack upgrade to classic S and X owners.


Not sue what you said here - future packs for older Tesla...What I read is that when a Model S gets to be 10+ years old and needs a new battery, what will be avail will be 20700, and not legacy battery. Did I get it?


----------



## AEDennis

AZ Desert Driver said:


> Not sue what you said here - future packs for older Tesla...What I read is that when a Model S gets to be 10+ years old and needs a new battery, what will be avail will be 20700, and not legacy battery. Did I get it?


The Tesla Roadster original run ended in 2011/2012. It was announced several years after the initial run that Tesla was making upgraded packs for Roadster owners that increased the range from 230+ miles to around 330+ miles (and they've just starting delivering these packs.)

Based on their behavior in the past (with the Roadsters) that I expect Tesla to strongly consider producing replacement battery packs for S and X as these owners vehicles age. At a point, it will probably be easier for them to swap out battery packs with what will be current technology rather than maintain the legacy 18650 platform. Perhaps sell these as pack upgrades or even define the number of kWh by software (akin to the old 40 to 60 or the current 70 to 75 delivered Model S.)


----------



## Carl

Tesla VP Jeff Evanson recently stated that one battery pack option would be less than 60kwh and that their costs are already below $190/kwh for the pack. Since the newer, larger format is significantly cheaper than the current one, I expect it to cost around $150 to $160 per kwh. $160X20kwh=$3,200 for the added battery capacity. Adding 25% profit margin yields a cost of $4,000. This size would provide about 300 miles of range. It will be advantageous for Tesla to encourage a larger battery pack for future sales purposes as well as obtaining more efficiency from their super charging stations. Hopefully they will package the larger battery pack with the supercharging fee for around $6,000.


----------



## Skione65

Carl said:


> Tesla VP Jeff Evanson recently stated that one battery pack option would be less than 60kwh and that their costs are already below $190/kwh for the pack. Since the newer, larger format is significantly cheaper than the current one, I expect it to cost around $150 to $160 per kwh. $160X20kwh=$3,200 for the added battery capacity. Adding 25% profit margin yields a cost of $4,000. This size would provide about 300 miles of range. It will be advantageous for Tesla to encourage a larger battery pack for future sales purposes as well as obtaining more efficiency from their super charging stations. Hopefully they will package the larger battery pack with the supercharging fee for around $6,000.


^^^This......Exactly what I'm hoping for.....$10,000 for largest battery pack, AWD (dual) AND Supercharging....I'm all over it. Even better if it's less, like $8000 but I doubt it. These aren't all my Optioning but a good start. My Top 3. I'll tier onto this a s a springboard.

Ski


----------



## LUXMAN

That would be a great deal for 6k I believe. IF true it would send the competition into a frenzy. LOL 
However I don't want Tesla to lose money on the 3 just to get it out the door.


----------



## Pinewold

Like your math, looking at model S. $8500 for 15kWhr. (new 60 model with 60kWhr - 75kWhr battery upgrade) 

Hope Gigafactory 30% cost reduction applies. $8500 X .70 = $5950 which would be more reasonable. 

If Model 3 Margin is lower %25 vs .30% % so take $5950 X.95 = $5652.50 for ~274 miles miles of range. 

Also hoping 215 range is lowball (have heard Musk say he wanted the Model 3 to start with 240 miles).
If 240 miles on 55kWhr turns out to be true, the 70kWhr battery may have a range of ~305!!!


----------



## Skione65

Pinewold said:


> Like your math, looking at model S. $8500 for 15kWhr. (new 60 model with 60kWhr - 75kWhr battery upgrade)
> 
> Hope Gigafactory 30% cost reduction applies. $8500 X .70 = $5950 which would be more reasonable.
> 
> If Model 3 Margin is lower %25 vs .30% % so take $5950 X.95 = $5652.50 for ~274 miles miles of range.
> 
> Also hoping 215 range is lowball (have heard Musk say he wanted the Model 3 to start with 240 miles).
> If 240 miles on 55kWhr turns out to be true, the 70kWhr battery may have a range of ~305!!!


Let me tell you...this is what I have been waiting for, for a decade. An EV like this, at this price point and MOST importantly 250-300 mile range. 300 being the holy grail for me, but I'd get by with the mid 250's.

Ski


----------



## Cali Desert Driver

Skione65 said:


> Let me tell you...this is what I have been waiting for, for a decade. An EV like this, at this price point and MOST importantly 250-300 mile range. 300 being the holy grail for me, but I'd get by with the mid 250's.
> 
> Ski


Me too man... if we get to a 300 mile range I wouldn't be hitting a Supercharger just for my commute! I also do 4 day trips so hopefully any vampire drain is minimal since my drive is 250 miles R/T


----------



## Skione65

@Cali Desert Driver,

My exact reasoning.....I'm only at 180-200 round trip on a single charge NO SC's. But my case as well.....the winter 4 day Vampire drain (on no charge and no battery preheat) is why I want min 250 so I can make it home (with winter degradation). 275-300 would give me a "No Worry" buffer. I also want to use 'some heat'. I'll be getting the cold weather package as well so I don't have to run cabin heat as much.

Ski


----------



## Cali Desert Driver

@ Ski. I'm lucky that one airport is 140 mile r/t and even a SC on the way but my home charge would suffice. The two longer drives (250 miles r/t for each airport) actually have three SC on the way. One fairly close to each airport, one about halfway home and the last about 30 miles from home. 

In this regard I'm very fortunate to be in California where the SC network is very established.


----------



## james connolly

folks, 

I have a model S question which is also relevant to model 3. If Tesla ships a car with a battery which has been software limited to a lower capacity. Say 75KWh software limited to 60KWh. The manufacturing costs of both cars (75 vs 60) is the same. So does that mean Tesla have a lower margin on the 60KWh car ? i.e. same hardware but sold at a lower price.

Thanks
James


----------



## TrevP

Most likely yes. Keep in mind however that Tesla has 25-30% gross margins on their cars, much more than anyone else in the same segment. They're expecting to deliver 80-90K cars this year so lower margins don't hurt as much since they can make some of it up in volume.

When Model 3 ships they will surely have lower margins there but the volume will be much higher. Just economics 101


----------



## Carl

They are going to have a compelling price for the longer range battery combined with supercharger cost.


----------



## Carl

*Swedish initiative lets EV owners share charging stations a la Airbnb*

Posted June 22, 2016 by Charles Morris &filed under Newswire, The Infrastructure.









A recent survey conducted by Renault found that 60 percent of Swedish drivers would like to see more EVs on the roads. Renault's poll also found (as others have) that a lot of people believe that a shortage of charging points is a major obstacle to EV adoption.

In response to these findings, Renault has created a new initiative called Elbnb: a social sharing platform that allows Swedes to share their charging stations with other EV drivers (the name is a portmanteau of _Elbil_, the Swedish word for an electric vehicle, and the popular lodging sharing platform Airbnb).

Using Elbnb, owners of charging points, or even regular power outlets, can tag their homes or workplaces as charging stops for EV drivers. Subscribers can use a map app to find participating charging points. Charging providers and drivers agree upon details such as time and potential reimbursement before charging starts.

IF ALL TESLA OWNERS AGREED TO DO THIS WE WOULD HAVE A HUNDRED THOUSAND CHARGING STATIONS TO HELP OUT IN CASE OF EMERGENCY.


----------



## MelindaV

is this not the same conversation we had a month ago?


Carl said:


> Thanks. I'm hoping tesla will come up with a program wherein these owners would agree to let any tesla driver charge up for a reasonable fee. My region is devoid of chargers and if I want to drive to Branson 240 miles away I might have to spend the night in Russellville just 90 miles away. Not a feasible trip.





MelindaV said:


> the plugshare app does this. Individuals can add their 'plug' to the map and permit travelers to stop and charge up. Before the superchargers were filled out, this is what the early Tesla drivers would do.
> I don't think it is common to ask for $ though, but more the user to offer a little donation for the hospitality.


----------



## MelindaV

TrevP said:


> As far as I know the Gigafactory will be making the 20700 cells for Model 3 at least initially. The recent batteries imported from other makers as I understand could be destined for PowerWall and PowerPacks being assembled at the factory.


There's a WSJ article from this weekend with info from JB.S lists 21700 instead on 20700. Maybe @AEDennis will come away from the GigaEvent with more info.


----------



## AEDennis

MelindaV said:


> There's a WSJ article from this weekend with info from JB.S lists 21700 instead on 20700. Maybe @AEDennis will come away from the GigaEvent with more info.


I'll make sure to pay extra close attention to size of cells for Model 3 for this crowd (and for my own education.)


----------



## TrevP

Funny because Elon was the one who confirmed the 20700 cell size at the shareholders meeting. 
Maybe the article got it wrong?


----------



## Badbot

20700 is correct cell size


----------



## John

I guess the official name is 2170 now.


----------



## Badbot

I got fooled by the misinformation.
2170 or 21700 it is now looking like the new cell size


----------



## eikoo

Does this number equal the diameter or cubic space?


----------



## Mike

eikoo said:


> Does this number equal the diameter or cubic space?


21mm diameter by 70mm height.


----------



## Johnson Wu

Does anyone know about the different between 2170 and 18650 battery?Capacity? Weight?How many batteries will use at model 3?


----------



## Badback

Johnson Wu said:


> Does anyone know about the different between 2170 and 18650 battery?Capacity? Weight?How many batteries will use at model 3?


Some have speculated on the difference based on the volume of the package. While this may be approximately correct, the capacity of a cell is dependent on the area of the electrodes, anode and cathode being equal in area. The cell is a flat sandwich of materials that is wound into a spiral cylinder, there is a hole in the middle caused by the mandrel around which it was wound. Without knowing the dimensions of the cell before is was wound, it is impossible to precisely calculate its relative capacity.

Charged cells weigh more that discharged cells and cells expand as they are charged. The expansion must be accounted for in the internal space of the package.


----------



## Johnson Wu

I have seen 5780 mAh of 2170 battery on news? Does it conform?How many mAh is about 18650 battery?


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

When I was designing heat exchangers, the direction of flow of the coolant mattered a lot. As I understand the current pack cooling - the coolant runs "left to right" perpendicular to the axis of the cell. In this flow direction, the heat from the first battery takes some cooling capacity from the second, which takes from the third...etc. It also seems to have pinch points, where the cylinders can act like extruding-rollers.
With the newly released pack design (still secret, but announced) I am wondering if the coolant flow is from the top to the bottom, instead of left/right. Seems like a natural flow director - in the space between cylinders. 
So, as an engineer, I'm interested in cooling design. Is this cooling design the secret sauce to improving cell performance? . As a buyer, it does not matter as long as it works. 
Trev - I watched your recent video on pack design...you did a very good job, except you glossed over cooling (what did you call that sticky goo that seals everything?)


----------



## TrevP

@AZ Desert Driver ,the stuff that Tesla uses is called an intumescent fireproofing gel. It's designed to swell when exposed to high temperatures and increase in volume and this density. All in the name to help prevent thermal runaway in case of a cell failure.

Tesla has several patents on using this stuff

http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20110262783

http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20100086844

http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20100136385

https://www.google.com/patents/US8263254


----------



## TrevP

Johnson Wu said:


> Does anyone know about the different between 2170 and 18650 battery?Capacity? Weight?How many batteries will use at model 3?


The internal volume of the 2170 is up by a factor of about 32%. What capacity in terms of mAh over the 18650 is unknown at the moment.

What I've been able to glean from the Model 3 introduction video from careful scrutiny is the new battery has 8 modules comprised of what appears to be 8 cells wide by 16 cells deep so 128 cells per module for a total of 1024 cells. Don't quote me on that because I don't have a high quality video available from someone in the front row to confirm this. All I have is the official Tesla video to go and the quality is poor for discerning details on the battery pack. They could also not be showing the actual battery pack in the video, could just be a simple rendering so as to not give away their secrets.

Model 3 is a smaller car then the Model S so by definition so is the battery pack. Tesla did some modeling to determine the best cell size for their requirements and energy needs and thus the 2170 was born. This cell, in time, will be used in everything they make but it's not going to happen overnight. Model 3 will be the first car to get this new cell and Model S/X should follow shortly afterwards after a battery pack redesign. Elon confirmed the 100kWh pack is the last to use the 18650 cell and going forward any bigger packs will use the new cell.


----------



## garsh

Badback said:


> ...there is a hole in the middle caused by the mandrel around which it was wound.





AZ Desert Driver said:


> ...I am wondering if the coolant flow is from the top to the bottom, instead of left/right. Seems like a natural flow director - in the space between cylinders.


I wonder if having coolant flow through the middle of each cell wouldn't be a better method.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

garsh said:


> I wonder if having coolant flow through the middle of each cell wouldn't be a better method.


As I understand the mandrel - it is a very thin spike so as to maximize the volume available to the active ingredients of the battery. The battery expands when charged and encroaches on this mandrel space. To expect this to be a coolant channel is a bit aggressive. I'd think making the battery cylinders as one SKU and the coolant as a separate SKU and then bolting them together would be a better design than trying to force fluid through the expansion chamber. 
But the question remains - is the coolant flow left/right or top/bottom? I am thinking that the module optimization went to better cooling via top/bottom...but this is just little ol me.


----------



## Johnson Wu

https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-2170-battery
I have seen the 2170 battery capacity will be around 5750~6000 Amh, it is double from 18650 battery. If it is true, the Model3 battery quantity will be around 3000 pcs.


----------



## Michael Russo

And for the laymen, this means?


----------



## Topher

Michael Russo said:


> And for the laymen, this means?


Honestly? Nothing. The battery will be in the floor, so you will never notice how big it is. The total energy capacity will determine range, but you won't care what size any individual cell is. Can they squeeze 300 miles of range into that area? 250? 350? That is the pertinent question. The only reason to care about the details is if you are a big EV nerd.

Thank You kindly.


----------



## Michael Russo

Topher said:


> Honestly? Nothing. The battery will be in the floor, so you will never notice how big it is. The total energy capacity will determine range, but you won't care what size any individual cell is. Can they squeeze 300 miles of range into that area? 250? 350? That is the pertinent question. The only reason to care about the details is if you are a big EV nerd.
> 
> Thank You kindly.


@Topher , thanks! Did not think so... And yes, range is key in the end (still betting on a min. of 250..!), together with the 'spaceship' interior!! LOL!

Have a nice evening!


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

just to complicate things - I set my MS to show "rated" miles, then set it to show "ideal". I was surprised when all of a sudden I showed that I could travel 240 miles on my 80% charged 60kw battery. When poking the button again, I got 190 miles remaining. 
Seems to me that figures don't lie, but liars can figure...so one can advertise "my car can beat a Tesla" by simply changing how the car is rated. Want a 250 mile car...no problem, just poke the right button. Would be nice to have a real standard for comparison.

That said, I don't plan on driving off the bottom of the battery pack any more than I drove off the last few gallons of my gas tank. Have not run out of gas since I used that excuse on high school lovers lane.


----------



## George Hawley

Trevor: re: 21700 cell: You say above that the interior volume of the 21700 is 32% greater than the 18650 but the external volume is 46% greater. How do you reconcile these two numbers?

To ballpark the battery pack for the M3, the car can be estimated to be 20% smaller than the MS. If it has the same coefficient of drag but is 20% smaller, the air friction could be estimated to be about 20% less than the MS. Even though there will be more steel, the car will be smaller and have a lighter battery pack. Let's say it weighs 1,000 pounds less than the MS or about 3800 pounds. The rated energy use for the S85 RWD model is about 279 wh/mile. 20% less is 223 wh/ mile. A 215 mile rated range would therefore suggest a battery pack with a capacity of about 48 kWh usable. It would not be out of line to have a 7 kWh buffer (the 85 has a buffer of about 9 kWh). Therefore I get a beginning battery pack wild guess of 55 kWh. What say you?


----------



## bmost88

Topher said:


> Honestly? Nothing. The battery will be in the floor, so you will never notice how big it is. The total energy capacity will determine range, but you won't care what size any individual cell is. Can they squeeze 300 miles of range into that area? 250? 350? That is the pertinent question. The only reason to care about the details is if you are a big EV nerd.
> 
> Thank You kindly.


We should all be EV nerds


----------



## Dan Detweiler

bmost88 said:


> We should all be EV nerds


If I press down on the long skinny pedal will it go?

There, that's the extent of my battery knowledge! 

Dan


----------



## bmost88

Dan Detweiler said:


> If I press down on the long skinny pedal will it go?
> 
> There, that's the extent of my battery knowledge!
> 
> Dan


Well according to some people if you push down on either pedal you go lol I hear its a great way to remodel your living room.


----------



## Dan Detweiler

bmost88 said:


> Well according to some people if you push down on either pedal you go lol I hear its a great way to remodel your living room.


Ha!!

That would be a great way to supplement your retirement income if it weren't for that pesky driving logs Tesla has in place. Drat you Elon Musk!

Dan


----------



## Ranma64

George Hawley said:


> Trevor: re: 21700 cell: You say above that the interior volume of the 21700 is 32% greater than the 18650 but the external volume is 46% greater. How do you reconcile these two numbers?
> 
> To ballpark the battery pack for the M3, the car can be estimated to be 20% smaller than the MS. If it has the same coefficient of drag but is 20% smaller, the air friction could be estimated to be about 20% less than the MS. Even though there will be more steel, the car will be smaller and have a lighter battery pack. Let's say it weighs 1,000 pounds less than the MS or about 3800 pounds. The rated energy use for the S85 RWD model is about 279 wh/mile. 20% less is 223 wh/ mile. A 215 mile rated range would therefore suggest a battery pack with a capacity of about 48 kWh usable. It would not be out of line to have a 7 kWh buffer (the 85 has a buffer of about 9 kWh). Therefore I get a beginning battery pack wild guess of 55 kWh. What say you?


Can we hope that Tesla is going to double the kWh of the battery pack maintaining the same physical size as they did with powerwall 2? In the Model 3 the battery pack is on 2 floor under the back seat: can we assume that the total space available for the cells would be more or less the same of the Model s/x battery pack that is using only one floor of cell?
Do you think they could produce a Model 3 p100d ?


----------



## MelindaV

Ranma64 said:


> Can we hope that Tesla is going to double the kWh of the battery pack maintaining the same physical size as they did with powerwall 2? In the Model 3 the battery pack is on 2 floor under the back seat: can we assume that the total space available for the cells would be more or less the same of the Model s/x battery pack that is using only one floor of cell?
> Do you think they could produce a Model 3 p100d ?


there are some quick battery area calculations in this post. based on it, it appears the Model 3 with the new battery size would be able to at least have the same kWh capacity as the Model S, likely more due to whatever improvements are in the new batteries.


----------



## Ranma64

MelindaV said:


> there are some quick battery area calculations in this post. based on it, it appears the Model 3 with the new battery size would be able to at least have the same kWh capacity as the Model S, likely more due to whatever improvements are in the new batteries.


Thanks!


----------



## Kennethbokor

We can "hope" for anything, however unless we hear news that comes directly from Tesla themselves, then any opinions are just that - conjecture. We can use some math/science to get an approximate pretty good guesstimate, however please treat all info that is not "official" as just that - unsubstantiated rumours and data. Battery technology is a rapidly evolving science now and we should defiantly see more improvements to range, sizes and charging rates as time moves forward. The hows, whats and whens are what we don't know yet.


----------



## TrevP

George Hawley said:


> Trevor: re: 21700 cell: You say above that the interior volume of the 21700 is 32% greater than the 18650 but the external volume is 46% greater. How do you reconcile these two numbers?
> 
> To ballpark the battery pack for the M3, the car can be estimated to be 20% smaller than the MS. If it has the same coefficient of drag but is 20% smaller, the air friction could be estimated to be about 20% less than the MS. Even though there will be more steel, the car will be smaller and have a lighter battery pack. Let's say it weighs 1,000 pounds less than the MS or about 3800 pounds. The rated energy use for the S85 RWD model is about 279 wh/mile. 20% less is 223 wh/ mile. A 215 mile rated range would therefore suggest a battery pack with a capacity of about 48 kWh usable. It would not be out of line to have a 7 kWh buffer (the 85 has a buffer of about 9 kWh). Therefore I get a beginning battery pack wild guess of 55 kWh. What say you?


Nope nope.

External dimensions are only 10% more than the 18650 but the volume has increased by 46% percent over the same. More volume means more surface area for the coils and should result in a higher energy capacity over an 18650. By going to a higher capacity cell without much increase in external dimensions it makes up for the smaller pack size the Model 3 will have. That should result in pack sizes that approach 90kWh.

Keep in mind both Lucid and Faraday are using 2170 cells (not from Panasonic) and their packs are not substantially larger than a Model S and they're getting 130kWh out of them. Tesla should easily get to those capacities when they switch over.

The main point here is Tesla designing an optimal cell size for the future taking into account massive costs savings from volume production and domestic production. Without doing this there is no Model 3 @ $35K


----------



## Guest

I'm worried that people who reserved Model 3 are truly expecting so much.
Of course most of us here are fans are optimistically minded about everything Model 3 will have. And that is awesome.

Somehow people think that Tesla can cut vehicle price in half just because 
a) they learned from S/X + b) vehicle will be 20% smaller + c) batteries will be produced at Gigafactory.
This is not going to happen. Are there any engineers here?

First of all Elon hinted M3 will be 20% smaller. Somehow people translated that to 20% smaller frontal area. Big mistake.
No. It will still carry 5 passengers. People don't get narrower nor shorter because they sit in a smaller vehicle.
Smaller mostly means lengthwise. Much smaller nose (yes, much smaller frunk) is primary way.

Secondly, we already have a smaller pack range estimation. 215 EPA miles, with probability that it will be slightly bigger.
Slightly is something like 5-10%, so 230 miles is absolute maximum for base model. This vehicle is designed not for US
specifically, but for the whole world. Like Model S and X. Actually Model 3 will be more preferred in EU/CH than in US market
as US loves bigger vehicles, EU loves smaller hatchbacks (on average). Please don't over-react on that piece of statistical truth.
And due to commutes in those markets are shorter than US I don't expect Model 3 smaller battery will be way above 55kWh.

Thirdly, the bigger pack option will be reasonably bigger (like it was with Model S years ago and X right now).
Reasonably/considerably/noticeably bigger is like 60 and 85. Like 75 and 90. Therefore if we translate that to promised
minimal range we get something like 70, 75 or 80 kWh. 85 is way too much, 65 is too little. But I expect only one bigger
version. At least in 2017. It is not reasonable to have too many versions. Software limited version will definitely not exist.
This is wasteful for manufacturer/Earth. Slightly bigger pack might evolve later, like it happened with previous models. 
70D (which AFAIK somebody somehow already have seen on a prototype) would be right within my estimation. Also, if we
translate that to range (with added front motor with more efficient gearing) we already get 215mi*(70/55)*1,05=287mi,
which is pretty much near Model S 90D results. And I actually expect 55, 55D, 70, 70D, P70D. First four most likely
will have identical motors all around, Performance model will definitely have more expensive rear motor/axle/wider tires.
This means 5 different performance levels (which is plentiful) and 5 different 220-300 mile range variation in 2017.
And all that on 2 (up to 3) different motor+inverter designs, 3 (up to 4) reduction gear designs and two pack variations. 
Should be good enough for high volume production.

And some more. Tesla will not shoot oneself into foot. Model S took the top place on the shelf. Model 3 will definitely not
beat Model S at 0-60. It will hurt Model S P-models. And it will also mean Model 3 will be over-engineered, a mistake
Tesla did with Model X. Elon promised not to go wild with Model 3. And best M3 should not beat best ModelS on range.
Usually car/tech manufacturers upgrade their higher end models before they get down to lower end.
For example, thorough the whole history of BMW, they have always introduced better/newer model starting from 7 series,
then few years later 5-series and some later 3-series. I expect Tesla will do something similar. It is not reasonable to offer
better/newer/modern features on cheaper models before flagships (Model S/X). Years later Model 3 will definitely beat
range numbers, but it will happen with Model S/X before M3 (for example, S/X switch to 2170).

My post isn't about what you want to hear, it is about what is reasonable. Model 3's competitive edge will not be due to 
extreme performance, best range or lap time figures. It will be loved because it will offers best bang for a buck. And that
is not going to happen with 2.2sec 0-60 car that has 300+mi range. Price sensitive customers will not want that. Model 3
will not be build due to performance variant requirements. That will require much more than just "a better motor". There are 
dozens other very complex requirements for extreme performance. One of those, for example, would be more capable 
cooling system. I bet Model 3 will have only one central stack of radiators. Model S has more for example. This is not preferred.


----------



## Twiglett

arnis said:


> Somehow people think that Tesla can cut vehicle price in half just because
> a) they learned from S/X + b) vehicle will be 20% smaller + c) batteries will be produced at Gigafactory.
> This is not going to happen. Are there any engineers here?


Don't dismiss the gigafactory as just being a big building. 
The engineer I would reference as proof is Elon Musk who has repeated over and over that the primary way Tesla will cut costs on Model 3 is through the gigafactory. I wouldn't just flippantly dismiss that.



arnis said:


> Thirdly, the bigger pack option will be reasonably bigger


Why? We already know the cells are volumetrically larger then the ones in S&X. So while we know that 100kW isn't an option, pretty much everything else is still on the table.

But the next one is the real kicker.


arnis said:


> Tesla will not shoot oneself into foot. Model S took the top place on the shelf. Model 3 will definitely not beat Model S at 0-60


You're thinking like one of the dinosaur car builders. Tesla doesn't work like that. Again, we already know that their competition is existing ICE, not Model S. Tesla will make the Model 3 to beat BMW 3 series regardless.
For BMW their performance car isn't the 7-series. That's the luxo-barge.
Tesla are much more likely unleash the hounds on Model 3 and use it as an excuse to shift Model S&X much further upmarket where they belong, that is already happening now and will likely continue.
For more proof, it would seem that ALL Teslas are getting exactly the same AP hardware - which proves that they aren't interested in being the same as Mercedes and BMW.
They are innovating regardless and will continue to do that on the car that is currently being released. In this case, Model 3.


----------



## Guy Weathersby

arnis said:


> And some more. Tesla will not shoot oneself into foot. Model S took the top place on the shelf. Model 3 will definitely not
> beat Model S at 0-60. It will hurt Model S P-models.


I tend to believe that you are mistaken for two reasons. First, and most important, Tesla knows that Model 3 is the future of the company and they would not intentionally restrict it to support another model. Second, the primary purpose of super performance cars is not to sell a specific model, but to generate publicity for the brand. A Tesla taking the record from a Tesla is great publicity, and when they put a larger motor in the Model S, and take back the record, wow! And when the Roadster takes the record if Tesla has the three quickest production cars, spectacular.

Actually, I would be very surprised if the Model 3 is quicker, but if it is, it is.

As I understand it all of the cars that are close to the Model S are very low production models which were designed to make money, they are pure publicity gimmicks. Tesla managed to produce a car which sets records and makes money. Which is really remarkable.


----------



## Red Sage

arnis said:


> I'm worried that people who reserved Model 3 are truly expecting so much.
> Of course most of us here are fans are optimistically minded about everything Model 3 will have. And that is awesome.
> 
> Somehow people think that Tesla can cut vehicle price in half just because
> a) they learned from S/X + b) vehicle will be 20% smaller + c) batteries will be produced at Gigafactory.
> This is not going to happen. Are there any engineers here? ... [SNIP]


Yeah. I didn't read any further. I'm not a fan of rhetorical queries. Let's try looking through the opposite, and correct, end of the telescope...

The biggest disadvantage of electric vehicles has been the ability to affordably build them using batteries with enough capacity to be worthwhile. Having a Gigafactory greatly reduces that expense, by 30% at the outset, and Tesla already had the best battery cell prices on the planet, and those costs will be lower by 5%-to-7% per year, year-over-year, per kWh. Building a smaller vehicle requires less material and results in a car with lower mass, that does not need as many battery cells to travel a given distance, while also lowering the entry price that much more. Elon Musk has said for quite some time that most technologies must reach their third iteration before they are truly ready for mass market distribution. All these things will happen. This year. Get over it. Goodbye.


----------



## Michael Russo

Guys, let's not forget the value of exchanging opinions, in the most constructive way, which may, at least at first start from a different place. However, when one considers others' perspective, this can refine one's thought and foster better alignment. :rainbow:
So, dear @Red Sage, rather than 'goodbye', I'd say 'good morning' () to a brand new day, which brings us all closer to the birth of a wonderful Model ≡!


----------



## Gorelimey

I was wondering with software locks, do Tesla hold back any battery capacity to improve wear or do you get the full 100%?


----------



## Guest

EV4Life said:


> You're thinking like one of the dinosaur car builders.
> For more proof, it would seem that ALL Teslas are getting exactly the same AP hardware - which proves that they aren't interested in being the same as Mercedes and BMW.


I'm not thinking like dinosaur car builder. I'm thinking about constraints Model 3 will have. 
The main constraint will be volumetrical limit for the battery. Exactly the same thing applies to Model S, Model X, Roadster, Nissan Leaf, BMW i3 etc. While it is true, that sticking more juice in a box is possible (all those cars did that) Model S started with a good head start, others started with massive amount of air sold in the battery pack (24kWh Leaf, 22kWh i3). Those upgraded 30-50% while Model S 85kWh to 100kWh (which is 15%). Model 3 will definitely apply 90-100kWh pack compactness, but volumetrical limit is what it is.
Changing cell diameter (while still using cylinders) doesn't drastically increase capacity per unit of volume. Even though there is less space used for cooling loop, walls etc, capacity will not increase exponentially. That is just what normal calculations on paper say. Adding 5mm to height does help, considerably, 10%, on paper.
BTW, dinosaur car companies also use common parts. Be it parking sensor, radar, camera or even a piston (that is the newest approach BMW took, their smallest 1.5l straight3 has a lot of common parts with their most powerful 3.0l straight6) - a lot of common parts between 3-series and 7-series. This is financially best way to make stuff. It also helps with reliability.



Guy Weathersby said:


> First, and most important, Tesla knows that Model 3 is the future of the company and they would not intentionally restrict it to support another model.
> 
> Actually, I would be very surprised if the Model 3 is quicker, but if it is, it is.


There will be restrictions due to respectable reasons. One of those would definitely be reliability. This is one of the last subjects Tesla is not showing middle finger to other car manufacturers. For example, pack degradation is extremely good. I would expect Model 3 will not have any upgrades on that front. But there are some performance based specifications that have negative effect on Tesla's reliability. For example clunking noise coming from reduction gear/drive shafts. Ludicrous+ which even states that it does have negative effects on drivetrain. Tesla can not afford fixing Model 3's as often as S/X, even non-warranty based work. 
Model 3 body will be lighter (but not 20%) compared to Model S. It will not be all-aluminum. That also means little bit less performance gains. And of course. the main technical reason why Model 3 will not be ultra quick is the battery output power, which is mainly based on pack capacity. So we can expect Model S 70-75kWh pack version output power. Due to Model 3 curb weight being less than S, it will have much better 0-60 time than Model S with 70-75kWh pack.



Red Sage said:


> Let's try looking through the opposite, and correct, end of the telescope...
> 
> Having a Gigafactory greatly reduces that expense, by 30% at the outset, and Tesla already had the best battery cell prices on the planet, and those costs will be lower by 5%-to-7% per year, year-over-year, per kWh.


Yes, 30% off the battery price per kWh. But Model 3 will not be made out of batteries. It is a car. Battery is only a component.
Just an example. Model 3 will have ultrasonic sensors. Their price per piece will not be reduced by a third. The real task for Model 3 engineers is to get away with 8 sensors, rather than 12, without losing any functionality.

costs will not be lower 5-7% year over year per kWh. Capacity per volume or mass will be higher - this is not the same.
Having Gigafactory1 at full power will reduce, for example, battery price by 30%. But having Gigafactory2 in EU will not reduce another 30%. There will be some reduction (for that same market) but due to other reasons.

Battery capacity limitation is battery based. Removing those would give more range but will degrade battery faster.
Output power is usually inverter limited. Except Performance models where inverters have more power than battery will output. 
Also smaller packs have less output, therefore AWD models might max out smaller pack output power.


----------



## Red Sage

arnis said:


> I'm not thinking like dinosaur car builder.


Yes. You are.



arnis said:


> There will be restrictions due to respectable reasons.


No. There will not be.



arnis said:


> Model 3 body will be lighter (but not 20%) compared to Model S. It will not be all-aluminum. That also means little bit less performance gains.


It will be light enough compared to direct competitors and the drivetrain used on the platform. The argument would be that the heaviest version of the Model S would also be the slowest. That is not the case. It is actually the quickest and highest top speed version. An electric drivetrain, delivering enormous amounts of instantaneous torque, removes a lot of Performance anxiety due to the ever-popular Power-to-Weight ratio paradigm of ICE vehicles by default.



arnis said:


> And of course. the main technical reason why Model 3 will not be ultra quick is the battery output power, which is mainly based on pack capacity. So we can expect Model S 70-75kWh pack version output power. Due to Model 3 curb weight being less than S, it will have much better 0-60 time than Model S with 70-75kWh pack.


God. The BMW 340i achieves 0-60 MPH in 4.8 seconds using a *320 HP engine*. Tesla achieved an initial 302 HP with the original Model S 60. Why in the bloody heck would you presume worse performance or output from a 70 kWh or 75 kWh battery pack, currently rated at 315 HP to start, used in a smaller vehicle, with just as much instantaneous torque on tap? I expect the base version of the Model ☰ will blow the doors off the 340i, and that its Performance version will blow the doors off of BMW M3, AUDI S4, Cadillac ATS-V, Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, Mercedes-AMG C63, and everything else in the market segment. And no, the _'output power'_ is not so much dependent upon pack capacity, as it is pack voltage. Tesla can set that up any way they like. The Model ☰ will indeed be _'ultra quick'_ because it is very likely the highest capacity battery pack will be more like 85 kWh to 95 kWh instead of only 75 kWh as you expect. So there.



arnis said:


> Yes, 30% off the battery price per kWh. But Model 3 will not be made out of batteries. It is a car. Battery is only a component.


_DUH_.



arnis said:


> Just an example. Model 3 will have ultrasonic sensors. Their price per piece will not be reduced by a third. The real task for Model 3 engineers is to get away with 8 sensors, rather than 12, without losing any functionality.


Geez. You do realize that economies of scale apply to common parts, right? The 60,000 to 100,000 of Model S and Model X sold each year are not built with components that have a cost scale similar to what 400,000 to 500,000 Model ☰ will achieve. Anything that is shared between Generation II and Generation III cars will actually go DOWN in cost. And since the Model S has already sold on the order of 11 years worth of cars over the course of only 4-1/2 years, it has already paid for itself in full. Wouldn't it be nice if a similar level of success were visited upon Model ☰? That would be... 5,500,000 units sold in only 4-1/2 years. Not at all bad.



arnis said:


> costs will not be lower 5-7% year over year per kWh. Capacity per volume or mass will be higher - this is not the same.


Damn. No one said the internal cost of the ENTIRE [FERRELLING] CAR would go down by 5% to 7% per year. The cost of the SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE COMPONENT OF THE CAR -- that would be the battery pack -- will continue to spiral downward, year over year, making the Model ☰ that much more profitable as a whole over the course of its product run, likely to be an 8-year lifecycle.



arnis said:


> Having Gigafactory1 at full power will reduce, for example, battery price by 30%. But having Gigafactory2 in EU will not reduce another 30%. There will be some reduction (for that same market) but due to other reasons.


Wow. You really don't pay attention, do you? The reduction in cost does not compound per Gigafactory, no one said it would. But the CEILING on costs can certainly be set that way. Elon Musk has said that shipping costs per molecule, sending one molecule of a substance on multiple trips around the world, ends up being rather expensive. Better to consolidate manufacturing in a vertical supply chain as close to the destination market for the final product as possible. Having a European Gigafactory, that also produces cars alongside battery packs, will be a benefit because of the costs that are NOT incurred shipping things around the world multiple times.



arnis said:


> Battery capacity limitation is battery based. Removing those would give more range but will degrade battery faster.


Wait... Hunh? _WHAT?!?_ I think you may have left out a word or two there by mistake. Are you speaking of the quantity of battery cells? You are forgetting that each individual 2170 battery cell will hold 30% more energy by volume than those 18650s used in 2012. So you get the same or better capacity using fewer cells while maintaining longevity. That's why the Model S has greater capacity than the Tesla Roadster, while having excellent resistance to degradation, despite using fewer battery cells.



arnis said:


> Output power is usually inverter limited. Except Performance models where inverters have more power than battery will output.


So far no version of a battery pack offered by Tesla Motors has had more _'output'_ than the attached inverter on the drivetrain was capable of handling with ease.



arnis said:


> Also smaller packs have less output, therefore AWD models might max out smaller pack output power.


Yet another _non sequitur_. Once again, the _'output'_ as you say is determined by the voltage. Not the capacity. And the voltage is determined by which and how many modules of battery cells are aligned in parallel versus series. It is something that can yield a very predictable result.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.


----------



## Michael Russo

Ok, guys, I think we've reached a point of 'agree to disagree' on this one...


----------



## Twiglett

Michael Russo said:


> Ok, guys, I think we've reached a point of 'agree to disagree' on this one...


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

Because the Model 3 is supposed to be a speedy construction - might they offer only ONE battery size? Build 300,000 batteries in Reno, all the same size, fit them onto the skate and ship them to Fremont . No options, just an optimized and production run size. Not too small, not too big, but a good engineering compromise for a fast production run. My guess- about 60-65 kWh for everyone (this year)


----------



## Guest

No. They have to offer vehicle for 35000$ on day one. Possible that they prioritize more expensive 
orders in the first few quarters. Something similar happened with S/X.

At the same time I think Elon mentioned RWD will come out faster. Seems reasonable, again, to speed things up
for a quarter or two.
But, most likely, 2170 cell production capacity will not be restriction therefore smaller 55kWh pack and larger 70kWh pack
will be available on day one (in configurator). Still, Tesla might prefer fulfilling 70kWh orders before 55kWh orders.


----------



## garsh

arnis said:


> No. They have to offer vehicle for 35000$ on day one. Possible that they prioritize more expensive orders in the first few quarters.


I think you're in violent agreement with everybody on that point.


> At the same time I think Elon mentioned RWD will come out faster.


That was just a rumor that TrevP heard (ref).


----------



## Twiglett

arnis said:


> No. They have to offer vehicle for 35000$ on day one. Possible that they prioritize more expensive
> orders in the first few quarters. Something similar happened with S/X.
> 
> At the same time I think Elon mentioned RWD will come out faster. Seems reasonable, again, to speed things up
> for a quarter or two.
> But, most likely, 2170 cell production capacity will not be restriction therefore smaller 55kWh pack and larger 70kWh pack
> will be available on day one (in configurator). Still, Tesla might prefer fulfilling 70kWh orders before 55kWh orders.


The suggestion that they might only release RWD and small batteries at first does kind of make sense.
They both need fewer components that way, especially as they will be ramping up battery and drivetrain production at the same time. 
Of course I'm hoping that they get to AWD and larger battery production pretty quickly because that's what I want to order


----------



## garsh

EV4Life said:


> The suggestion that they might only release RWD and small batteries at first does kind of make sense.


The rumor is RWD and _big_ battery first.


----------



## Badback

garsh said:


> I think you're in violent agreement with everybody on that point.
> 
> That was just a rumor that TrevP heard (ref).


Not sure what violent agreement is. Is it the opposite of acquiescent disagreement?


----------



## garsh

Badback said:


> Not sure what violent agreement is. Is it the opposite of acquiescent disagreement?


It's when you say "no", followed by an explanation which is pretty much the same as what the other party is saying.


----------



## Red Sage

garsh said:


> It's when you say "no", followed by an explanation which is pretty much the same as what the other party is saying.


Ah. So, just like every argument I've ever had with every ex-Girlfriend I've ever known, then...? That is, the ones where I wonder, _"Waitasec, why is this an argument at all?" _ Gotcha.


----------



## Ranma64

any news about difference in charging speed for a battery pack made of 21700 compared to a same sized made by 18650? something like 70kwh.... what could we expect?


----------



## Guest

We should expect the same rates. If Tesla has a new chemistry they will most likely apply the same stuff to 18650 cell too.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

Going on a Supercharger trip today. Planned it out and noticed something that will have a big effect on my future battery size. ALL supercharges are about 100 miles apart. A bigger battery will not make any difference on the number of stops, or the amount of juice put in during a stop, or the duration of a stop - only make a difference as to how many miles are left in the tank apron arrival at the charger. Are you comfortable arriving with 10 miles cushion, or do you need 50 miles cushion?

I THOUGHT I wanted the biggest battery - but not at all sure WHY. It won't let me get to any places that a smaller battery can. I can drop a ton of money to buy bigger - and wait longer to get it - but still can't find the reason Why?
How big is too big? How big is big enough?


----------



## teslaliving

AZ Desert Driver said:


> Going on a Supercharger trip today. Planned it out and noticed something that will have a big effect on my future battery size. ALL supercharges are about 100 miles apart. A bigger battery will not make any difference on the number of stops, or the amount of juice put in during a stop, or the duration of a stop - only make a difference as to how many miles are left in the tank apron arrival at the charger. Are you comfortable arriving with 10 miles cushion, or do you need 50 miles cushion?
> 
> I THOUGHT I wanted the biggest battery - but not at all sure WHY. It won't let me get to any places that a smaller battery can. I can drop a ton of money to buy bigger - and wait longer to get it - but still can't find the reason Why?
> How big is too big? How big is big enough?


For your trip today that may be true, but there are still some places where a S60 has trouble with the distances between chargers. Also note you need a reserve margin (people are comfortable with 15-20%. Also the car charges slower as it reaches capacity. So a "normal" cycle is in the 20%-90% range, so you're only using about 70% of your battery or about 145 miles on the S60. In cold weather you can lose up to 40% of that range (now down to 87 miles). Thats worst case though.

Lots of variables there but just keep that in mind.

Bigger is better, but as you noticed there is a limit on how much you need. For myself, I've been very happy with the S85 range. I think a 3 75 (if thats what they do) will be perfect to match what I'm used to. Given that Tesla pretty much has to beat the bolt at 240 I think pretty much any 3 would make me happy but i'll go for the bigger battery anyway if I can.


----------



## Badback

AZ Desert Driver said:


> Going on a Supercharger trip today. Planned it out and noticed something that will have a big effect on my future battery size. ALL supercharges are about 100 miles apart. A bigger battery will not make any difference on the number of stops, or the amount of juice put in during a stop, or the duration of a stop - only make a difference as to how many miles are left in the tank apron arrival at the charger. Are you comfortable arriving with 10 miles cushion, or do you need 50 miles cushion?
> 
> I THOUGHT I wanted the biggest battery - but not at all sure WHY. It won't let me get to any places that a smaller battery can. I can drop a ton of money to buy bigger - and wait longer to get it - but still can't find the reason Why?
> How big is too big? How big is big enough?


I think that you need to consider what the capacity might be as the car ages. I plan to keep my Model 3 for a very long time, so I will be getting the largest battery offered.


----------



## teslaliving

Badback said:


> I think that you need to consider what the capacity might be as the car ages. I plan to keep my Model 3 for a very long time, so I will be getting the largest battery offered.


Degradation is very slight over the years but it is definitely a factor if you plan on keeping a long time.


----------



## Red Sage

AZ Desert Driver said:


> ...Why? How big is too big? How big is big enough?


Back in 2014 Elon Musk and JB Straubel were being constantly accosted by journalists, investors, and others about making a car with a _'500 mile battery'_. They were very reluctant to discuss the subject. Once, Elon made the mistake of simply noting they could make a 500 mile range version of the Model S now, but that it would be ridiculously expensive and not worth the effort. Both Enthusiasts and Naysayers alike lost their minds over that, with all types of speculation and accusations over how Tesla was _'holding back'_ technology.

It was during, I believe, the 2014 Second Quarter Conference Call that Elon and JB expressed their philosophy on this. They intimated that the _'sweet spot'_ for electric vehicle range was between 250 and 350 miles. If you think about it, now that the Model S 60 has been discontinued _(again)_ that is effectively the range of today's Model S variants.

My own analysis of their statements comes to this question, _"What's the point of having a battery pack that allows the car a 500 mile range if you will never drive it more than 350 miles between stops?"_ That's only 70% of the actual range of the vehicle. Worse, some would want the _'500 mile range battery'_ just so that they could _'guarantee'_ no stops to recharge on their 300 mile one-way trips. That is only 60% of the available range. Operating an electric vehicle in that manner is illogical and only contributes to so-called _'range anxiety'_.

I think the problem is that people who are not interested in conservation, or sustainability, or efficiency at all want to continue the same bad habits they had with ICE vehicles when they move to electric vehicles. These are the people who always insist that electric vehicles are _'not ready for prime time'_. Those people should educate themselves as to the limitations of current EVs, and simply put off buying one until circa 2022-2025 or so. Because Tesla's philosophy is based upon conservation, sustainability, and efficiency. Thus, it does not support wasteful practices such as always _'filling up'_ when the needle shows _'1/4 tank'_ remaining. It also does not allow for the notion that _'Real World Range'_ should be defined as the distance you can travel at 100 MPH when depleting the battery pack from 90% to 20%.

In order to drive an electric vehicle effectively today, it is not necessary to be _'limited'_ in your driving experience. But you do have to be disciplined, even if you are unable to be regimented. I expect to drive my Tesla Model ☰ to within 10% remaining capacity most of the time on road trips, just as I do with ICE vehicles.

_"A man's got to know his limitations."_ -- Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan, _'MAGNUM FORCE' (1973)_


----------



## Gilberto Pe-Curto

Red Sage said:


> Back in 2014 Elon Musk and JB Straubel were being constantly accosted by journalists, investors, and others about making a car with a _'500 mile battery'_. They were very reluctant to discuss the subject. Once, Elon made the mistake of simply noting they could make a 500 mile range version of the Model S now, but that it would be ridiculously expensive and not worth the effort. Both Enthusiasts and Naysayers alike lost their minds over that, with all types of speculation and accusations over how Tesla was _'holding back'_ technology.
> 
> It was during, I believe, the 2014 Second Quarter Conference Call that Elon and JB expressed their philosophy on this. They intimated that the _'sweet spot'_ for electric vehicle range was between 250 and 350 miles. If you think about it, now that the Model S 60 has been discontinued _(again)_ that is effectively the range of today's Model S variants.
> 
> My own analysis of their statements comes to this question, _"What's the point of having a battery pack that allows the car a 500 mile range if you will never drive it more than 350 miles between stops?"_ That's only 70% of the actual range of the vehicle. Worse, some would want the _'500 mile range battery'_ just so that they could _'guarantee'_ no stops to recharge on their 300 mile one-way trips. That is only 60% of the available range. Operating an electric vehicle in that matter is illogical and only contributes to so-called _'range anxiety'_.
> 
> I think the problem is that people who are not interested in conservation, or sustainability, or efficiency at all want to continue the same bad habits they had with ICE vehicles when they move to electric vehicles. These are the people who always insist that electric vehicles are _'not ready for prime time'_. Those people should educate themselves as to the limitations of current EVs, and simply put off buying one until circa 2022-2025 or so. Because Tesla's philosophy is based upon conservation, sustainability, and efficiency. Thus, it does not support wasteful practices such as always _'filling up'_ when the needle shows _'1/4 tank'_ remaining. It also does not allow for the notion that _'Real World Range'_ should be defined as the distance you can travel at 100 MPH when depleting the battery pack from 90% to 20%.
> 
> In order to drive an electric vehicle effectively today, it is not necessary to be _'limited'_ in your driving experience. But you do have to be disciplined, even if you are unable to be regimented. I expect to drive my Tesla Model ☰ to within 10% remaining capacity most of the time on road trips, just as I do with ICE vehicles.
> 
> _"A man's got to know his limitations."_ -- Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan, _'MAGNUM FORCE' (1973)_


and It's a waste of weight, having a big battery (500miles) sitting there without electrons...


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

On my yesterday Supercharger trip - I arrived in Gila Bend , only to find that the entire SC was "not available". eek- I'm a long way from a backup charger - now what? Turns out, the SC did work, just ramps up and ramps down current depending on whims of the day. Ate lunch and filled the battery enough for next leg. This event makes me want to keep my tank no-less than 1/2 full, so I can alway bypass a SC that is down. Old habits die hard.
Got a good case of Range Anxiety here - but I suspect there are only a few SC that are misbehaving out of the entire fleet. It just happens to be near me. And it will probably not be allowed to remain un-fixed for long. 
This event also made my wife to cold-shoulder my buying her a Model 3 - she wants to stay ICE.
I am "stuck" having a Model S - and its range, and highway quirks. Very comfortable with short range trips, but highway trips need new comfort levels that I don't yet ave. Any suggestions?


----------



## UncleT

At one point Tesla was demonstrating how a battery pack could be swapped out faster than filling a gas tank. The pack swapping idea apparently went the way of the two speed trans in the Roadster, but what if you could own two packs (small & large), one of which Tesla would store for you and then swap it when you wanted (for a price)?


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

Hmmm... said:


> At one point Tesla was demonstrating how a battery pack could be swapped out faster than filling a gas tank. The pack swapping idea apparently went the way of the two speed trans in the Roadster, but what if you could own two packs (small & large), one of which Tesla would store for you and then swap it when you wanted (for a price)?


Yeah, interesting idea of a battery swap - but WHERE would you keep the spare? For my flashlights, I can keep a bunch of batteries in my closet and am capable if installing them without tools. For a big, heavy car battery - it would have to be at a shop with a lift - and just down the street from me. Which would make it a long way from most others.
I take comfort in the swap design - that means if my pack goes sideways, it can be replaced with one that is factory functional - perhaps even upgraded. (technology and capacity). But for daily refill - not very practical.


----------



## Daliman

Tesla seemed to drop this idea as the supercharger network expanded. I think high speed charging expansion will take care of range issues in a few years. It would be interesting if you could buy a smaller battery for day to day and then rent the max size from Tesla when you want to make a long trip. The service centre does the swap and gives you your own battery back after the trip. You don't pay for capacity you don't need or for electricty to haul the weight.


----------



## garsh

AZ Desert Driver said:


> ...only to find that the entire SC was "not available"...


Yep, I've had plenty of "unforeseen circumstances" that give me good reason to have range anxiety. I understand that batteries are expensive and the world is going to be supply-constrained for a while, but I hope that eventually we push further past the 300-mile range battery.


----------



## UncleT

AZ Desert Driver said:


> Yeah, interesting idea of a battery swap - but WHERE would you keep the spare? For my flashlights, I can keep a bunch of batteries in my closet and am capable if installing them without tools. For a big, heavy car battery - it would have to be at a shop with a lift - and just down the street from me. Which would make it a long way from most others.
> I take comfort in the swap design - that means if my pack goes sideways, it can be replaced with one that is factory functional - perhaps even upgraded. (technology and capacity). But for daily refill - not very practical.


This is the best I can do for you (maybe next year).


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

Daliman said:


> Tesla seemed to drop this idea as the supercharger network expanded. I think high speed charging expansion will take care of range issues in a few years. It would be interesting if you could buy a smaller battery for day to day and then rent the max size from Tesla when you want to make a long trip. The service centre does the swap and gives you your own battery back after the trip. You don't pay for capacity you don't need or for electricty to haul the weight.


From a selfish point of view - I LOVE this plan. Temporary upgrade for a super trip, and down size for daily driver.!!

But I don't see the reason for an investor/ entrepreneur to do this - Buy a fleet of big batteries and a lift, then hope for enough customers to rent out the tool and swap for enough money to make it a worthwhile investment. Good for the customer, bad for the investor.

There are folks who buy small cars for daily use, and rent beasts for long trips. In these cases, the driver gets an unfamiliar unit to drive - assuming maintenance and handling are up for the task. The battery swap would let one keep the familiar and just change range. [as I gain confidence in the SC network, perhaps even changing range is not that important]


----------



## Red Sage

I really liked the idea of _'renting'_ a higher capacity battery pack for road trips when I first saw it suggested as well. On the other hand, I completely despise the notion of buying the car sans battery and then leasing a battery pack separately. So, yeah... The car should always come with a battery pack. And if someone could not afford the mythical 500-mile, 750-mile, or 1,000-mile battery pack at the time of purchase, it would be cool to have a temporary battery swap near the beginning of your road trip, and then get back your regular, ordinary, everyday 200-to-300 mile battery pack upon your return. Even easier is having the _'extra'_ capacity unlocked via software switch either permanently or temporarily. Either way, it would be very convenient for the Customer to even prepay, perhaps $50 to $80 per battery swap, or upgrade period, to have maybe ten of them spread out over a two year period as needed. But for the sake of Tesla's Mission, I think it best they sell you the car as configured once, rather than dealing with temporary upgrades, via either battery swap or software unlock. They need all the money up front in order to expand consistently. And it allows them to avoid Customer Service snafus when someone didn't read or comprehend all the small print involved with the transaction.


----------



## Daliman

It would work if Tesla sold you a Model 3 with a standard 55 kWh pack for day to day and kept a number of 75 kWh packs available for rent. They could keep a couple at each service centre, or require a couple weeks notice and ship one in. I am not sure how they would see the business case as they make more selling bigger packs but I think it would be attractive to customers who only take long trips occasionaly.


----------



## JWardell

I've been saying for a while, it would be great for many of us (and financially for Tesla as well), if they offered temporary unlocking of full battery capacity for those with software-limited battery packs. 

Just like those that run out of gas and call AAA (and wait...), I would pay a $25 or maybe $50 fee if I am stuck on the side of the road and could tap my way to enabling a few hours or a day of the additional capacity. Depends on how desperate you are... Or maybe paying for daily or weekly extended battery if you are planning a rare road trip.


----------



## Red Sage

JWardell said:


> I've been saying for a while, it would be great for many of us (and financially for Tesla as well), if they offered temporary unlocking of full battery capacity for those with software-limited battery packs.
> 
> Just like those that run out of gas and call AAA (and wait...), I would pay a $25 or maybe $50 fee if I am stuck on the side of the road and could tap my way to enabling a few hours or a day of the additional capacity. Depends on how desperate you are... Or maybe paying for daily or weekly extended battery if you are planning a rare road trip.


For the sake of Tesla's Mission, I think it best they sell you the car as configured once, rather than dealing with temporary upgrades, via either battery swap or software unlock. They need all the money up front in order to expand consistently. And it allows them to avoid Customer Service snafus when someone didn't read or comprehend all the small print involved with the transaction.


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> I've been saying for a while, it would be great for many of us (and financially for Tesla as well), if they offered temporary unlocking of full battery capacity for those with software-limited battery packs.


So, I would *love* to have this, if it actually saved me a lot of money compared to buying the larger battery. I would only buy the "battery upgrade" when I was about to go on a longer trip.

I just don't see the benefit for Tesla. I don't think they could price this to make more money than just selling two sizes. As a buyer, if I make a couple of long trips per year, I'm going to buy a car that can make those trips, which means I would opt for the larger battery anyhow. Tesla would have to price the "temp battery upgrade" feature less than the larger battery (while having the same material cost), and I'm afraid it would mostly cannibalize sales of the larger battery instead of convincing those who would otherwise buy the smaller battery to upgrade.


> I would pay a $25 or maybe $50 fee if I am stuck on the side of the road and could tap my way to enabling a few hours or a day of the additional capacity.


The software-locked batteries work by simply not charging the batteries up the whole way. The benefit of this is that it supercharges pretty quickly, since current drops off as the pack is charged. But that also means that when you run out of juice, the battery really is dead, and there's nothing to unlock.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

JWardell said:


> I've been saying for a while, it would be great for many of us (and financially for Tesla as well), if they offered temporary unlocking of full battery capacity for those with software-limited battery packs.
> 
> Just like those that run out of gas and call AAA (and wait...), I would pay a $25 or maybe $50 fee if I am stuck on the side of the road and could tap my way to enabling a few hours or a day of the additional capacity. Depends on how desperate you are... Or maybe paying for daily or weekly extended battery if you are planning a rare road trip.


The software unlock lets you poke more miles into the top of the battery. If you have emptied the tank, and then unlock, there is nothing there on the bottom of the tank to unlock, you just got more headspace.


----------



## Gabzqc

Daliman said:


> It would work if Tesla sold you a Model 3 with a standard 55 kWh pack for day to day and kept a number of 75 kWh packs available for rent. They could keep a couple at each service centre, or require a couple weeks notice and ship one in. I am not sure how they would see the business case as they make more selling bigger packs but I think it would be attractive to customers who only take long trips occasionaly.


IMHO, wayyyy too much work on top of everything going on at the superchargers today. Perhaps in a few years, but I think the real key is enough chargers to "top you up" on your trip frequently enough


----------



## Daliman

All I was saying was this model is possible and would satisfy some owners. Tesla could have done this with the S and X. Since they have not done anything like this yet they likely made a choice to pusue superchagers at least for now. I agree producing the 3 on time and building Superchargers are the priorities for the forseeable future.


----------



## Red Sage

So far with Model S and Model X, Tesla's threshold for satisfying _'some'_ Customers has been at least 5% uptake. I would not be surprised to see that move to at least 10%, and possibly as high as 20%, when it comes to most features offered for Model ☰. That would make it a lot easier to predict and control the acquisition of components to build the majority of cars as the majority of buyers would choose to configure them.

Think of it this way... 5% is one of every twenty orders. 10% is one of every ten orders. 20% is one of every five orders. 50% is one of every two orders.

I would love an option of having a tan carpet for both the cabin, as well as lining the frunk and trunk. I doubt very much that Tesla will offer it. They'll probably only offer black/anthracite grey for carpet throughout the vehicle. Hence, 100% of all cars come the same way, regardless of other configuration options. One out of every single order placed is a lot easier to manage.

If only _'some'_ people like the fully tan interior, less than one in five buyers, it could go away as an option before I got my car. I could live with it, if I had to... But I really would prefer to not have to deal with a black hole interior that required I use a flashlight even during daylight to find things in the car.

Tesla has to make decisions of this sort for every single car they offer.


----------



## OneSixtyToOne

AZ Desert Driver said:


> Going on a Supercharger trip today. Planned it out and noticed something that will have a big effect on my future battery size. ALL supercharges are about 100 miles apart. A bigger battery will not make any difference on the number of stops, or the amount of juice put in during a stop, or the duration of a stop - only make a difference as to how many miles are left in the tank apron arrival at the charger. Are you comfortable arriving with 10 miles cushion, or do you need 50 miles cushion?
> 
> I THOUGHT I wanted the biggest battery - but not at all sure WHY. It won't let me get to any places that a smaller battery can. I can drop a ton of money to buy bigger - and wait longer to get it - but still can't find the reason Why?
> How big is too big? How big is big enough?


On my first trip out of my comfort zone in my EV I encountered the CHP running a break on the freeway. They diverted all traffic and that resulted in a 20 mile detour. I made it to my destination with less than 10 miles to spare.


----------



## JWardell

AZ Desert Driver said:


> The software unlock lets you poke more miles into the top of the battery. If you have emptied the tank, and then unlock, there is nothing there on the bottom of the tank to unlock, you just got more headspace.


This is nothing more than a software decision, weather to lock out access to the top % of battery, when you could just as easily lock out access to the bottom % of the battery instead.

I'm surprised so many of you say you see software battery lockout does not benefit Tesla. They just proved it with last year's 60s. It brings down the entry level price, and brings in a LOT more customers. Especially if they can make up the difference down the line with temporary unlock fees.

35 grand is the "average" price for a car, but it's still above what median price is...most people still think spending 30k on a car is too much. Every bit you bring down the entry level price of a car, you get the consideration of a much wider market.


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> It brings down the entry level price, and brings in a LOT more customers.


But it doesn't bring down the entry-level _cost to manufacture.
_
Tesla might have enough profit margin on a $66,000 car to temporarily do something like this to gain market share, but they'll have a considerably harder time making it profitable on a $35,000 vehicle.

I think Tesla showed that this isn't a viable long-term strategy, given their decision to drop the 60 from the lineup.


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> This is nothing more than a software decision, weather to lock out access to the top % of battery, when you could just as easily lock out access to the bottom % of the battery instead.


True. Or even providing something in-between. The tradeoffs are:

Top lock-out provides faster supercharging.
Top lock-out protects vehicle against excessive full-charging events, which decreases battery lifetime.
Bottom lock-out provides unlockable extended range feature.
Bottom lock-out protects vehicle against excessive battery depletion events, which decreases battery lifetime.


----------



## 3Victoria

I think that there will be profit even on the base model. Battery prices have fallen quite considerably. It a good guess that the drive train of the 3 is about the same price as a drive train in an ICE (including engine, transmission, exhaust, pollution-controls). So, I think a locked out smaller battery might happen. However, cells may be limited in the beginning, so they may go with the smaller battery first in order to make the most number of cars.


----------



## Red Sage

I originally wrote this for the Tesla Forums, but I think it applies here as well:

You must understand that the reason why the price of new cars is going up is that the price of used cars is going up. Vastly more used cars are sold every year than new ones. In 2015 there were about 17,400,000 new vehicles sold in the U.S. But there were over 38,000,000 used cars and trucks sold the same year. And, while the average sale price of new cars was over $33,000 the average sale price of used cars was over $18,000. Further, those used vehicles averaged over 10 years of age.

When someone wants to be frugal with their money? They buy used. They wait until prices on previously _'nice'_ cars have dropped to a level they are willing to spend. You can't have ten-year-old inexpensive cars to sell used until you sell new cars first. Let's see... Are there any long range ten-year-old fully electric cars available for around $18,000 today...? Uhm... NO.

So, please, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop bellyachin' about _'affordable'_ cars. Because no one really wants to buy them -- NEW. Most people are perfectly satisfied with a car that is 'new to them'. Most people buy vehicles for which someone else has already endured the loss of residual value due to depreciation.

Sure, yeah, I know... Looking at the sales charts, the *majority* of new cars sold are priced between $22,000 and $24,000 -- but that does not change the fact that the *average* sale price is over $33,000. Americans in particular don't care so much about what they can actually afford so much as what they can _'get'_ and then _'make the payments'_ for on a monthly basis. Frugality is not a major concern when buying new, people care more about the terms of the financing agreement than the price of the vehicle itself. It's a happy delusion that keeps the economy going.

Already, most major automobile manufacturers have abandoned the sub-$15,000 price point, as they long ago did with the sub-$10,000 price point. I expect they will do the same at sub-$20,000 by/before 2020. The car companies that offer the majority of the vehicles that sell best with a base price between $22,000 and $24,000 also are able to manufacture in excess of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 vehicles per year worldwide as a bare minimum.

Tesla does not have that level of industrial scale at all. Even after tripling the expected output of the Gigafactory #001, Tesla will only have a bit over 1,500,000 units of annual capacity once the building is complete in 2020. And, as Elon Musk has pointed out in his _*Master Plan Part Deux*_, the vision at Tesla is to not offer a new vehicle below the Model ☰ at all, but to instead offer a ride sharing service to those who are unable to buy new. There will be no Tesla branded analog to the Corolla/Yaris, Civic/FIT, Focus/Fiesta, Sentra/Versa, Cruze/Sonic, Elantra/Accent, Forte/Rio, or other types of _'cheap'_ cars.

This does not necessarily mean there won't be a less expensive version of the Model ☰ at some point. There may be, but the company will have to be very solidly profitable before it is offered. Once Tesla's internal cost for battery packs is below the $100 per kWh threshold _(placing their battery cell cost at perhaps $84 per kWh)_, they may be able to offer the Model ☰ at as little as $27,500 and still enjoy a 12% profit margin. But, by the time that happens, it could be that the base price for cars like the Corolla, Civic, Focus, Sentra, Cruze, Elantra, and Forte is at/over $25,000 while cars such as Camry, Accord, Altima, Malibu, Sonata, and Optima have climbed to $30,000.

I expect that Tesla would be able to keep the base Model ☰ at about $35,000 for a long while, as the _'entry level luxury'_ vehicles flee into ever more _'exclusive'_ pricing levels to match their lower sales rates. This will contribute to the disruption of the ICE industry, as people were able to compare the Model ☰ to other vehicles on the market.

I believe the Model ☰ will be sized as would be a typical Compact car, but due to internal passenger and luggage volume will be classified as Midsize. So it will be perfectly placed as both a bargain compared to 5-Series, A6, E-Class, GS, and Ghibli as well as a relatively minor price upgrade from Camry, Accord, and the like. The sales of some will be devastated, while others will be at least sorely affected.​


----------



## garsh

3Victoria said:


> Battery prices have fallen quite considerably.


Let's say that Tesla has pack costs down to $120/kWh (reference).
A 55kWh pack would cost $6600.
A 75kWh pack would cost $9000.

Tesla would be throwing away $2400 in profit for every base model that never ends up being upgraded to 75kWh.
The after-purchase upgrade price would have to be priced higher than the at-purchase upgrade price (otherwise, everybody would order the 55 & upgrade later), which also means that the after-purchase upgrade price would need to be appreciably higher than $2400. If Tesla is aiming for 25% gross margins, then an at-purchase upgrade to 75kWh would be ($2400*1.25=) $3000, so an after-purchase upgrade could be... $3500-$4000.

I just can't see many people who are cash-strapped enough to NOT purchase the 75kWh at purchase, yet willing to drop an additional $4000 on their now-old $35,000 car a year or two down the road.


----------



## Red Sage

JWardell said:


> This is nothing more than a software decision, weather to lock out access to the top % of battery, when you could just as easily lock out access to the bottom % of the battery instead.
> 
> I'm surprised so many of you say you see software battery lockout does not benefit Tesla. They just proved it with last year's 60s. It brings down the entry level price, and brings in a LOT more customers. Especially if they can make up the difference down the line with temporary unlock fees.
> 
> 35 grand is the "average" price for a car, but it's still above what median price is...most people still think spending 30k on a car is too much. Every bit you bring down the entry level price of a car, you get the consideration of a much wider market.


I would not doubt that Tesla already does some version of lockout both at the top for protection of battery longevity and at the bottom for protection against bricking. It is not necessarily an either/or decision, because someone can choose to do both with battery system management. The precise percentage of energy held in reserve will never be enough to be an unlockable emergency use only segment of useful range. Nor will it ever be publicized as such by giving a particular amount of miles or percentage of total capacity.

I think that mathematically and statistically too much weight is given to _'median'_ averages just as Bezier curves are overused in civil drafting. As I mentioned above, it doesn't matter if most people buy new cars priced between $22,000 and $24,000. What matters is that people who want to buy a new car are willing to pay an average of $33,000 or more to do so. And, that even more people are willing to buy a used car at around $18,000 or more.

Again, it is important that we do not overlook the distinction between current average pricing of new cars versus preowned vehicles. The price for used cars is slightly over half that of new cars on average. The sales of used cars are slightly over twice those of new cars on average. Thus, the closer your price point is for a new car to the average price of a used car, the more likely someone is to just buy what they perceive to be a _'better'_ car for less money.


----------



## Topher

garsh said:


> The after-purchase upgrade price would have to be priced higher than the at-purchase upgrade price (otherwise, everybody would order the 55 & upgrade later), which also means that the after-purchase upgrade price would need to be appreciably higher than $2400. If Tesla is aiming for 25% gross margins, then an at-purchase upgrade to 75kWh would be ($2400*1.25=) $3000, so an after-purchase upgrade could be... $3500-$4000.


Even worse than that. If they get a 50% take rate (which would be huge), they need to make up the cost of those other $2400 batteries that never get upgraded, so keeping the margin the same they need to charge $6,000. Lower take rates make the upgrade price even higher. How costly would it have to be to do a battery swap, and not make more money?

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Michael Russo

Red Sage said:


> I originally wrote this for the Tesla Forums, but I think it applies here as well:
> (...)


Sure does... @Red Sage ...
So much that it actually reminded of a related post in the topic of 'cheaper' vehicles that I thought you wrote on this forum a couple of months ago... searched for it yet could not find it...


----------



## Red Sage

Michael Russo said:


> Sure does... @Red Sage ...
> So much that it actually reminded of a related post in the topic of 'cheaper' vehicles that I thought you wrote on this forum a couple of months ago... searched for it yet could not find it...


OK, then! With that in mind, here is another post from the Tesla Forum. It was relative to my calculations for profitability as they pertain to internal battery cost and build cost of vehicles for Tesla. Much of my own ideas about how things will work out for Model ☰ are contained herein:

Traditional automobile manufacturers typically admit to about a 6% margin for their cars. I presume that is relative to wholesale pricing. And originally the _'independent franchised dealerships'_ allowed that they might get as much as 4% margin at MSRP. Later, they began to lower their margin to different ranges: 2% to 3%; then 1% to 2%, and most recently claiming 0% or 'losing money' on the sale of new cars. They've never been able to keep their story straight, beyond saying they don't make any significant profit at all.

But if we go back to what was admitted about three years ago... A $35,000 price point as MSRP would have a $33,600 Wholesale Invoice. And that $33,600 would be above a $31,584 build cost. So, maybe 90.24% of MSRP, worst case.

I expect that Tesla is shooting for at least a 12% margin on the base version of Model ☰. 88% of $35,000 would come to a $30,800 build cost.

Back in 2014, JB Straubel said that the battery pack was approximately 1/4 of their cost of building the car _(Model S)_, all in. So, if that same ratio is applied to the Model ☰, they are trying to get to roughly $7,700 or less for their internal cost on the base battery pack. So, at $128.33 per kWh or less, they could put a 60 kWh battery pack in the base car. _(If you presume a 20% penalty for packaging and cooling, that means a battery cell cost at ~$107 per kWh.)_

It has been revealed that: 1) Tesla's internal cost is _'less than $190'_ per kWh at the battery pack level; and 2) Tesla has confirmed a 35% improvement in pricing with battery packs from Gigafactory #001. So, we know that their internal cost on battery packs from the outset will be $123.50 per kWh or less from the very start. _(Which means that at the battery cell level, they are looking at ~$103 per kWh.)_

Think of it this way... With $30,800 on hand to build the car, less $7,700 for the battery pack, that would leave $23,100 to build the rest of the car. Some time ago, it was said that the cost of a BMW 3-Series _'roller'_, sans engine and drivetrain, was around $22,000. Something tells me that Tesla will be able to offer a very capable vehicle for $35,000 even if their margin is materially less than 12% at 10% or even 6% overall.

It will be fun when GM decides to file suit alleging _'technology dumping'_ against Tesla next year. It won't work, but they may try it anyway. And then they'll learn to their chagrin that Tesla is not losing thousands per sale after all. Proving the case in favor of EVs with evidence for all to see in a public forum.​


----------



## 3Victoria

Red Sage said:


> OK, then! With that in mind, here is another post from the Tesla Forum. It was relative to my calculations for profitability as they pertain to internal battery cost and build cost of vehicles for Tesla. Much of my own ideas about how things will work out for Model ☰ are contained herein:
> 
> Traditional automobile manufacturers typically admit to about a 6% margin ... With $30,800 on hand to build the car, less $7,700 for the battery pack, that would leave $23,100 to build the rest of the car. ...​


Of course this equation gets even better if their cost is below $100 per kWh for cells. And certainly as they ramp up the costs will reduce. Looking very good.


----------



## Twiglett

Red Sage said:


> OK, then! With that in mind, here is another post from the Tesla Forum. It was relative to my calculations for profitability as they pertain to internal battery cost and build cost of vehicles for Tesla. Much of my own ideas about how things will work out for Model ☰ are contained herein:
> 
> Traditional automobile manufacturers typically admit to about a 6% margin for their cars. I presume that is relative to wholesale pricing. And originally the _'independent franchised dealerships'_ allowed that they might get as much as 4% margin at MSRP. Later, they began to lower their margin to different ranges: 2% to 3%; then 1% to 2%, and most recently claiming 0% or 'losing money' on the sale of new cars. They've never been able to keep their story straight, beyond saying they don't make any significant profit at all.
> 
> But if we go back to what was admitted about three years ago... A $35,000 price point as MSRP would have a $33,600 Wholesale Invoice. And that $33,600 would be above a $31,584 build cost. So, maybe 90.24% of MSRP, worst case.
> 
> I expect that Tesla is shooting for at least a 12% margin on the base version of Model ☰. 88% of $35,000 would come to a $30,800 build cost.
> 
> Back in 2014, JB Straubel said that the battery pack was approximately 1/4 of their cost of building the car _(Model S)_, all in. So, if that same ratio is applied to the Model ☰, they are trying to get to roughly $7,700 or less for their internal cost on the base battery pack. So, at $128.33 per kWh or less, they could put a 60 kWh battery pack in the base car. _(If you presume a 20% penalty for packaging and cooling, that means a battery cell cost at ~$107 per kWh.)_
> 
> It has been revealed that: 1) Tesla's internal cost is _'less than $190'_ per kWh at the battery pack level; and 2) Tesla has confirmed a 35% improvement in pricing with battery packs from Gigafactory #001. So, we know that their internal cost on battery packs from the outset will be $123.50 per kWh or less from the very start. _(Which means that at the battery cell level, they are looking at ~$103 per kWh.)_
> 
> Think of it this way... With $30,800 on hand to build the car, less $7,700 for the battery pack, that would leave $23,100 to build the rest of the car. Some time ago, it was said that the cost of a BMW 3-Series _'roller'_, sans engine and drivetrain, was around $22,000. Something tells me that Tesla will be able to offer a very capable vehicle for $35,000 even if their margin is materially less than 12% at 10% or even 6% overall.
> 
> It will be fun when GM decides to file suit alleging _'technology dumping'_ against Tesla next year. It won't work, but they may try it anyway. And then they'll learn to their chagrin that Tesla is not losing thousands per sale after all. Proving the case in favor of EVs with evidence for all to see in a public forum.​


This is even more relevant now with GM basically admitting that they really are losing money on the Bolt and they're using the ZEV credits to offset that. Their goal is for the _next_ model to be the one that makes money.
If Tesla can show they can profit from Model 3 it will prove the whole EV market despite what GM, Ford and especially Fiat say.
No pressure Elon, no pressure.


----------



## Guy Weathersby

EV4Life said:


> Their goal is for the _next_ model to be the one that makes money.


Actually figuring out that cars should make money seems like radical thinking for GM.


----------



## Red Sage

EV4Life said:


> This is even more relevant now with GM basically admitting that they really are losing money on the Bolt and they're using the ZEV credits to offset that. Their goal is for the _next_ model to be the one that makes money.
> If Tesla can show they can profit from Model 3 it will prove the whole EV market despite what GM, Ford and especially Fiat say.
> No pressure Elon, no pressure.


Sure. No pressure at all. I think Elon figured out this part years ago, regarding profitability. The hard part is implementation. 



Guy Weathersby said:


> Actually figuring out that cars should make money seems like radical thinking for GM.


Indeed. GM's notion of _'profitability'_ has been to _'make it up on the back end'_ for decades. They have been so wasteful in so many parts of their business model for so long that it is almost offensive to their very nature to consider making a profit on the vehicle itself, up front, unless it is a gas guzzler based on 40+ year old technology.

For a long time they _'made it up'_ on their _'loss leader'_ vehicles through GMAC Financing, but made the mistake of spinning off that division into its own company that no longer had to answer to GM executives. And, they design their cars with planned obsolescence in mind from the outset. So their financial analysis of a vehicle project includes the expected revenue over the course of 15-to-20 years of replacement parts as an essential component of their viability analysis.

By their internal accounting, an electric car can never be _'profitable'_, because you cannot design one to gradually fall apart on purpose in a predictable fashion, cannot count on prodigious amounts of cyclical revenue over the lifetime of the car, which is why their decided _'solution'_ to electrification of transportation is hybrid plug-ins.

Protecting the notion that vehicles should be rolling replacement parts conveyances seems to be the fundamental business model behind the traditional automobile industry.


----------



## Badback

Red Sage said:


> Sure. No pressure at all. I think Elon figured out this part years ago, regarding profitability. The hard part is implementation.
> 
> Indeed. GM's notion of _'profitability'_ has been to _'make it up on the back end'_ for decades. They have been so wasteful in so many parts of their business model for so long that it is almost offensive to their very nature to consider making a profit on the vehicle itself, up front, unless it is a gas guzzler based on 40+ year old technology.
> 
> For a long time they _'made it up'_ on their _'loss leader'_ vehicles through GMAC Financing, but made the mistake of spinning off that division into its own company that no longer had to answer to GM executives. And, they design their cars with planned obsolescence in mind from the outset. So their financial analysis of a vehicle project includes the expected revenue over the course of 15-to-20 years of replacement parts as an essential component of their viability analysis.
> 
> By their internal accounting, an electric car can never be _'profitable'_, because you cannot design one to gradually fall apart on purpose in a predictable fashion, cannot count on prodigious amounts of cyclical revenue over the lifetime of the car, which is why their decided _'solution'_ to electrification of transportation is hybrid plug-ins.
> 
> Protecting the notion that vehicles should be rolling replacement parts conveyances seems to be the fundamental business model behind the traditional automobile industry.


Hoised by their own petard.

Of course, they never realized that during their 100 year history with the ICE paradigm, that they were setting themselves up to fail in the end. The horse and buggy people made the same mistake.

The END is near.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

I've said this in a few places now I believe, but in general the Model 3 customer is very different than the Model S customer. I can guarantee with certainty the Model 3 will see a lot more financing and leasing than the Model S. In addition, an obvious statement that buyers will be in a lower income bracket with lower disposable income. Of course that's not true for everyone, but it feels like a safe assumption of the larger population. 

To that end, consumers can afford the car because they can make the $700 car payment every month. 

What they are unlikely to do is spend thousands down the road outside of their monthly financing to add range. 

It's a novel idea, but bad business.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I've said this in a few places now I believe, but in general the Model 3 customer is very different than the Model S customer. I can guarantee with certainty the Model 3 will see a lot more financing and leasing than the Model S. In addition, an obvious statement that buyers will be in a lower income bracket with lower disposable income. Of course that's not true for everyone, but it feels like a safe assumption of the larger population.
> 
> To that end, consumers can afford the car because they can make the $700 car payment every month.
> 
> What they are unlikely to do is spend thousands down the road outside of their monthly financing to add range.
> 
> It's a novel idea, but bad business.


I find this analysis fascinating ... Predicting the income level of a consumer. In my line of work, (research chemical engineer) I look at hard facts. It never occurred to me that there would be "market analysis" that would craft a product for a specific income level. Makes sense, but outside of my expertise. And then to forecast future behavior - (not upgrade later) seems like a very reasonable projection. To be subjected to such analysis leaves me feeling a bit creepy - even perhaps "used". Yet I am sure that this is not the first time I've been bunched into a group and market analyzed.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

AZ Desert Driver said:


> I find this analysis fascinating ... Predicting the income level of a consumer. In my line of work, (research chemical engineer) I look at hard facts. It never occurred to me that there would be "market analysis" that would craft a product for a specific income level. Makes sense, but outside of my expertise. And then to forecast future behavior - (not upgrade later) seems like a very reasonable projection. To be subjected to such analysis leaves me feeling a bit creepy - even perhaps "used". Yet I am sure that this is not the first time I've been bunched into a group and market analyzed.


Well, remember this is my assumption, so it may or may not be accurate.

We know people are willing to spend upwards of $80k USD on this car and want a P75D with ludicrous. However, I am confident saying that is the outlier group. We also know people potentially like the size of this car more than the Model S, which is certainly a very large sedan.

All of that said, I feel confident saying that a car that starts at $35k and tops out at a yet to be determined price (call it $60k-80k) attracts a much different buyer than a car that starts at $70,700 and stretches all the way up to $172,000 (gasp). Clearly after you remove the outliers and focus on the mean and say 1-2 standard deviations from the mean, this is most like an audience that isn't going to spend a few thousand dollars to enhance their car after taking delivery when they would likely need to roll that into their financing up front.

Again though, just my guess and assumption here.

I negate myself as I would be able to spend the money on a software unlock for the battery out of pocket down the road. Now, would I (if it were an option)? Doubtful. I'll tell you why. The average American drives just under 30 miles a day. Well if the base battery comes with 215+ miles of range. How many people will spend a few thousand dollars after taking delivery to boost range after they realize range anxiety is not a real thing?

I mean, I drive a lot, just shy of 20,000 miles a year. My daily commute is 75 miles. More than twice the average and I won't sniff range issues with 215+ miles of range.

I see the play as sell the range upfront and for that reason a bad decision to provide all cars with a bigger battery when it would be incredibly rare for someone to buy more range after the fact.


----------



## Topher

AZ Desert Driver said:


> To be subjected to such analysis leaves me feeling a bit creepy - even perhaps "used". Yet I am sure that this is not the first time I've been bunched into a group and market analyzed.


Please don't look into 'customer loyalty cards', or 'search engine optimization', or really anything to do with modern marketing.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## MelindaV

SoFlaModel3 said:


> the Model 3 will see a lot more financing and leasing than the Model S.


I don't know... The model S has as large (if not larger) percentage of it's buyers who stretched much further to buy/lease/finance it than any other prior car. I think it will be quite similar percentage of full cash purchase to financed/leased on the 3 as it is on the other models. If anything, there may be more that buy in cash for the 3.


Topher said:


> Please don't look into 'customer loyalty cards', or 'search engine optimization', or really anything to do with modern marketing.
> Thank you kindly.


side story on freaky internet analytics - about a week ago at work I was searching for some obscure construction product. That night when I got home, all of the sidebar adds were coming up with the same item. So it's no longer just internet history within that computer, but being morphed over to other computers that may save a similar site login that's been used on both machines.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

MelindaV said:


> I don't know... The model S has as large (if not larger) percentage of it's buyers who stretched much further to buy/lease/finance it than any other prior car. I think it will be quite similar percentage of full cash purchase to financed/leased on the 3 as it is on the other models. If anything, there may be more that buy in cash for the 3.


That's a good point! Hey, it helps bolster my point in that even on the Model S, they couldn't sell the software unlock on the battery upgrade.


----------



## Twiglett

Judging by various EM tweets it looks like the larger battery is coming first.
It will be interesting to see if the smaller battery even makes it into production or if it ends up being like the 40k battery.


----------



## Guest

EV4Life said:


> Judging by various EM tweets it looks like the larger battery is coming first.


Not possible, because 35k (baseprice) vehicle must be available on day one.


----------



## MelindaV

arnis said:


> Not possible, because 35k (baseprice) vehicle must be available on day one.


it likely will be available to order, but it will not be delivered before the larger.


----------



## DaveIrina

I have always assumed I need a range of >300 miles per charge for a model S or a model 3 to have an acceptable cross country car. Do you know of anyone who has experience with the S or 3 who can confirm my assumption or correct me on this?

I have found a good deal on a Model S, the car has everything on it I want except that the range, I'm told, is 250 miles. Is that enough range to do serious cross country travel?


----------



## garsh

DaveIrina said:


> I have found a good deal on a Model S, the car has everything on it I want except that the range, I'm told, is 250 miles. Is that enough range to do serious cross country travel?


Cross country trips are going to be different in a Tesla. You drive 3-4 hours, then you stop for 30-60 minutes to charge the car. If you're the kind of person who wants to drive 500 miles at a time, with all of your stops being 10 minute gas & coffee breaks, you'll need to change your philosophy, or forget about using a Tesla for this purpose.


----------



## DaveIrina

Understand, thanks for responding.

I'm just wondering if a 250 mile range is enough to make travel practical given that I do plan to adjust my driving style to take longer 'gas up' breaks.

thanks


----------



## garsh

At 65mph, that's about 3.5 hours of driving, with a 30-60 minute break following to recharge. You might have to stop driving sooner, depending on the location of charging stations, but that would also result in a shorter stop to recharge. If you're happy with that, it's definitely doable.

To get a taste of what a cross-country trip would be like, try this article. Note that the supercharger network was a good bit smaller when this article was written. It should be much easier to find them on more routes today, and even easier in the future.
The Race of the Centuries: 2013 Tesla Model S vs. 1915 Ford Model T


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

I too did a bunch of anguish about range. With SC located about every 100 miles, leapfrogging was a change in habit, but not too tough to accept. I was most worried about my passengers - wanting to inconvenience them as little as possible. I worried that the SC were beside places that were not yet open, or offered only junk food. Where or where do we spend 15 minutes? My wife hated the idea of planning stops, instead of picking a place whenever the desire occurred. As such, she is not wanting a Model 3 anymore.
200 miles, 250 miles, 300 miles - all on the same 100 mile leapfrog.
Taken as an entire packet - the wonderful car does have this refill hiccup. To me, the benefits outweigh the hic.


----------



## DaveIrina

garsh said:


> At 65mph, that's about 3.5 hours of driving, with a 30-60 minute break following to recharge. You might have to stop driving sooner, depending on the location of charging stations, but that would also result in a shorter stop to recharge. If you're happy with that, it's definitely doable.
> 
> To get a taste of what a cross-country trip would be like, try this article. Note that the supercharger network was a good bit smaller when this article was written. It should be much easier to find them on more routes today, and even easier in the future.
> The Race of the Centuries: 2013 Tesla Model S vs. 1915 Ford Model T


 I was looking at an EV trip planner that indicated that stopping to charge a little more often will result in a shorter charge time because of the charge curve of the superchargers. The EV trip planner indicated the overall travel time can be reduced by driving for an hour or two less, and then charging for less time.


----------



## garsh

DaveIrina said:


> I was looking at an EV trip planner that indicated that stopping to charge a little more often will result in a shorter charge time because of the charge curve of the superchargers.


It's the charge curve of the batteries. The batteries can be charged quickly when close to empty, and not nearly as fast when close to full.

To take advantage of that, you try to charge up just enough to make it to the next supercharger with an almost-empty battery.









The problem with that approach, is that you're screwed if you get to the supercharging station and find:

All stalls are occupied
A truck with trailer has decided to park across all the stalls (I've seen it).
That station is off-line


----------



## stevezzzz

DaveIrina said:


> I was looking at an EV trip planner that indicated that stopping to charge a little more often will result in a shorter charge time because of the charge curve of the superchargers. The EV trip planner indicated the overall travel time can be reduced by driving for an hour or two less, and then charging for less time.


In a perfect world, where Superchargers would be located a few yards from the highway (not a few stoplights and a mile or more from the highway, as is the usual case), the optimal strategy for making time would be to drive crazy fast and stop at every Supercharger, arriving at each with a very low SOC to take advantage of the higher charge rate. In the real world, I've found that it makes more sense to spend a few extra minutes at a Supercharger if it allows you to leapfrog past the next one by driving a little slower. This is particularly true if you take a meal at a charging stop and the car is ready before you are. The overhead of leaving the highway and navigating to a Supercharger varies, but it's never inconsiderable.

Contrast this with the 'old' days when Superchargers were few and a road trip was a string of days consisting of two driving legs with a painfully slow, hours-long charging stop at an RV park in the middle.

[It's my first post here on the Model 3 Owners Club forums, but I've been road-tripping in Teslas since my Roadster purchase in 2009.]


----------



## mt.west.ev

The trip that I make monthly is 470 miles, but the first leg is 270 miles. There is an SC in Beaver, UT, but nothing for 100 miles either side. I figure I need 300 mile range.

OTOH .... my reservation number will not come up until H=Jan 2019 ..... so hopefully the M3 will have an option for 300 mile range, or additional SC's will be constructed.

Waiting, watching and studying.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

mt.west.ev said:


> The trip that I make monthly is 470 miles, but the first leg is 270 miles. There is an SC in Beaver, UT, but nothing for 100 miles either side. I figure I need 300 mile range.
> 
> OTOH .... my reservation number will not come up until H=Jan 2019 ..... so hopefully the M3 will have an option for 300 mile range, or additional SC's will be constructed.
> 
> Waiting, watching and studying.


Remember you don't have to exclusively use superchargers. Check out http://www.chargepoint.com/


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

SoFlaModel3 said:


> Remember you don't have to exclusively use superchargers. Check out http://www.chargepoint.com/


And - even if the Car can go 270 miles without stopping - can YOU? I need to stretch legs, get food, empty tanks and get rearranged for driving safely.
The charge-point are not as fast, but will buy you some miles while you R&R


----------



## mt.west.ev

AZ Desert Driver said:


> And - even if the Car can go 270 miles without stopping - can YOU? I need to stretch legs, get food, empty tanks and get rearranged for driving safely.
> The charge-point are not as fast, but will buy you some miles while you R&R


This is not a rebuttal ... we all do things differently, and it is important that we do what is comfortable for each of us.

In my original post, I said we make a 470 mile trip (each way) monthly. While I may stop for a quick break (or soda) in between (depending on when we leave) but I normally stop in Beaver, UT (potty, refreshment/meal). There is a Tesla SC there .... so it would be very natural to recharge there.
For those reasons .... I said that a 300 mile range would be ideal, and/or additional charging locations. Then it was pointed out that I can charge at a non-SC location.

Normally, once a year I take a cross country trip ... but that is a different situation.


----------



## Johnson Wu

Does anyone know the battery size,spec,number?Ben Sullins has post 2416 battery will use in Model3,is it real?


----------



## Kizzy

Johnson Wu said:


> Does anyone know the battery size,spec,number?Ben Sullins has post 2416 battery will use in Model3,is it real?


The model 3 uses 2170 cells. It's been speculated that the number cited on the Teslanomics channel could have referred to the number of cells. The long range pack is likely close to 80 kWh based on EPA documents.


----------



## Johnson Wu

Kizzy said:


> The model 3 uses 2170 cells. It's been speculated that the number cited on the Teslanomics channel could have referred to the number of cells. The long range pack is likely close to 80 kWh based on EPA documents.


Thanks,so the number and modules still unknown.


----------



## Stats App

Just added this feature to Stats app that computes battery capacity of the car every time you charge the car and also compares your max range against other cars of the same model/year/mileage. More detail here: maadotaa.com


----------



## Major Victory

Stats App said:


> Just added this feature to Stats app that computes battery capacity of the car every time you charge the car and also compares your max range against other cars of the same model/year/mileage. More detail here: maadotaa.com


Charging extra after we purchased this app and supported it is not cool. Yes, it is a new feature but you are using the data from us to support this new feature and I do not appreciate profiting from my data and also charging me for it..


----------



## Stats App

Major Victory said:


> Charging extra after we purchased this app and supported it is not cool. Yes, it is a new feature but you are using the data from us to support this new feature and I do not appreciate profiting from my data and also charging me for it..


If you want your data to be excluded, you can do so in the settings tab of the app.


----------

