Elon Confirmed: 75kWh max battery for Model 3

samson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2017
Messages
314
Location
Detroit MI
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#41
I'd like offer an observation that I take from his latest information about the positioning and less features compared to Model S.

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


TREV,

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

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

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

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

What do you guys think
 

TrevP

TOO Founder / Administrator
Founder
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
6,707
Location
Toronto
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#42
I'm not privy to inside production information other than what was relayed to me and I had reported on a few weeks ago (production numbers and RWD first).

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

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

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

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

John

Tech Founder
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
1,634
Location
California
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#43
remember the $7500 tax credit is good for two quarters AFTER they reach 200,000 domestic deliveries.
Dan
Well, technically you get ONE quarter after the quarter in which they reach 200,000 United States vehicles. So the goal would be to sell the 199,999th on Dec 31, 2017 so that the entire next TWO quarters would allow United States buyers to claim the full $7,500 tax deduction.
 

Dan Detweiler

Top-Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,573
Location
Canton, Georgia
Country
Country
#44
Well, technically you get ONE quarter after the quarter in which they reach 200,000 United States vehicles. So the goal would be to sell the 199,999th on Dec 31, 2017 so that the entire next TWO quarters would allow United States buyers to claim the full $7,500 tax deduction.
I stand corrected. You are right on that, thanks.

Dan
 

Mark C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
264
Location
Arab, AL
Country
Country
#46
I'm still looking forward to how this plays out. IIRC, it was "less than 60" for the standard issue pack and the maximum that could fit in a Model 3 based on size with the old style battery was 75.

IF the spread between the standard and optional battery pack is my version of affordable though, I may ante up for the bigger battery. The charging infrastructure is not as robust in the Southeast as it is in the Southwest or on the coasts, plus I plan to keep it a very long time.
 
4

4701

Guest
#47
the maximum that could fit in a Model 3 based on size with the old style battery was 75
All true, but there is no old and new style battery (you mean 18650?) for Model 3. All production prototypes run on 2170.

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

Dan Detweiler

Top-Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,573
Location
Canton, Georgia
Country
Country
#49
Another thing to remember about battery size is that the larger battery will supercharge much faster to a certain level than the smaller battery. In other words if you have a 55 and a 75 sitting at a supercharger stall both near 0%, the 75 will get to 50 kW much faster than the 55 due to the severe slowing of charging speed over the last 15-20% of the battery capacity.

Dan
 
4

4701

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

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

NRG4All

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
97
Location
Show Low, AZ
Tesla Owner
No
Country
Country
#51
"The shorter wheelbase only allows for a 75 kWh pack in Model 3 at current cell/module energy densities". Elon's tweet makes me wonder. Do the prototypes have the 18650 cells or do they have the 21700 cells? I know that the production version will have the new cell, but were they available for the prototypes? So what "current cell" is he talking about? If the prototypes have the old cell, then with the increased density of the new cells, would it be possible to exceed the 75 kWh limit?
 

Bobby Garrity

Active Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
138
Location
North Massapequa, NY
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#52
"The shorter wheelbase only allows for a 75 kWh pack in Model 3 at current cell/module energy densities". Elon's tweet makes me wonder. Do the prototypes have the 18650 cells or do they have the 21700 cells? I know that the production version will have the new cell, but were they available for the prototypes? So what "current cell" is he talking about? If the prototypes have the old cell, then with the increased density of the new cells, would it be possible to exceed the 75 kWh limit?
The release candidates certainly have the 2170s, and it is safe to assume that he meant the 2170s when he said "current".
 

Red Sage

The Cybernetic Samurai
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
714
Location
Los Angeles CA
Country
Country
#54
If one presumes there are 8 modules within the Model 3 battery pack...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is why I believe it is necessary that the base capacity of the Model 3 be no less than 60 kWh, just to make sure that Tesla will be above their goal at 90%.
 
Last edited:
4

4701

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

Right now there is absolutely no reason. Queue is longer than a year:tearsofjoy:
I would like to quote myself from March.
My estimations. 350km (217mi) was dead on. Though I expected 500km (310mi) to appear slightly later, Tesla did it right away.
How nice from them.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2017
Messages
20
Location
Artarmon, NSW
Country
Country
#56
I would like to quote myself from March.
My estimations. 350km (217mi) was dead on. Though I expected 500km (310mi) to appear slightly later, Tesla did it right away.
How nice from them.
If we multiply M3 kerb weight by the range for the standard and long range versions of the M3, we find the long range has 1.51 times the tonne-miles of the std battery version. Therefore battery sizes are likely to be 75 kWh and 50 kWh. This means each sub-module of the battery will vary in this ratio.

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

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

4701

Guest
#57
120kg is no good for lifting therefore pretty much impossible to handle without special lifting devices.
EU accepted norm is 30kg per healthy male if done frequently (multiple lifts hourly).
Or double if done by two people.

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

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

JWardell

Legendary Member
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
3,583
Location
Boston
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#58
The drivetrain electronics system and nominal battery voltage is 400VDC.
And DC is MUCH more dangerous than AC at the same voltages. AC turns off 120 times a second. DC never turns off, you stay frozen and die at high voltages.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2017
Messages
20
Location
Artarmon, NSW
Country
Country
#59
120kg is no good for lifting therefore pretty much impossible to handle without special lifting devices.
EU accepted norm is 30kg per healthy male if done frequently (multiple lifts hourly).
Or double if done by two people.

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

BTW, we saw some battery design sketches months ago.
Also it is hard to wire things up in case of 3-4 modules. Including plumbing.
I was surprised to read only 3 modules. But from a very few other facts, like weight difference caused by the battery, tonne.mile range, Tesla battery architecture, we can calculate details of the battery. 120 kg of submodules in a module is a surprise to me. There may also be a module casing ((the batteries in the MS/MX don't have module casing - just a pan in the battery case. Maybe there is an MS/MX style battery case but it would need a complex tool to fix it to the base of the car given all the screws for the MS/MX battery. 3 longitudinal modules with the their own case would be far faster to install if there is a battery cover on the underside of the car. A cover would permit thermal insulation under the battery. A machine to lift 140 kg can be much smaller than one lifting 450 kg.
 

Dan Detweiler

Top-Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,573
Location
Canton, Georgia
Country
Country
#60
So...I am no electrical genius but I am trying to do some math on this and I think I must be missing something. I get an efficiency of 273 watts per mile, times a range of 310 miles = 84,630 watt capacity which is 84.63 kilowatts. That's certainly not 75 which is the assumption on the capacity.

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

Dan