garsh's Official Model 3 Battery Pack Capacity Calculation Thread

MichelT3

Love those Aero's!
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,372
Location
Netherlands
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#21
No, selling is selling... or?
The difference is in the ulterior motive. Selling as a goal, or selling as a means.
 

Mike

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
2,171
Location
Batawa Ontario
Country
Country
#22
By calling it marketing, it sounds to me like it's done with the purpose to sell.
While I'm convinced that the ulterior motive is not to sell and make money, but to spread EV's and renewable energy to better the world. That you can only do that if the new products are better than the fossil ones. And that is what people realise and what makes Tesla so attractive. The philosophy behind the make and its products.
At the end of the day, I think we agree with Elon and his worldview move to electric propulsion.

That, in the context of Tesla (Motors), is what is the final goal is.

Elon is creating a product that must be irresistible to skeptics like my dad.

My father is coming around and that is no small feat, thus his respect for the marketing techniques being used.

The soft sell. Word of mouth. Snippets of information. Even that talk of a 2.0 second 0-60 thru unofficial channels....all building up customer demand, etc.

I 100% agree, that if the actual (new) ev product is not better than the fossil ones, it will fail.
 

Red Sage

The Cybernetic Samurai
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
714
Location
Los Angeles CA
Country
Country
#23
By SWAG (aka Kentucky windage), I was thinking the desirability of having an acceptable Ludicrous package for Model 3 would prompt the engineers to be asked: Can we safely stack at least 85kwh in there? From a marketing perspective, if the Model S buyer is paying the bigger bucks, you sanely don't want him greatly upstaged by someone buying a Model 3. I realize we're talking the real Elon here, but as the Puzo's Godfather was wont to say, "It's strictly business."
I offer again as evidence, the BMW M3 blows the doors off of every version of the BMW 7-Series. The 3-Series has been the best selling premium passenger car worldwide for decades. The Lexus IS has routinely sold horribly in comparison to the 3-Series. And the IS was woefully gimped compared to the LS for most of its existence. I think that the BMW strategy works a bit better than the Lexus one.
 

Topher

Energy Curmudgeon
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
591
Location
Maine
Tesla Owner
Reservation
Country
Country
#24
Software Locked 55 unlocked to 70
Tesla has already said that it will have less than 60 actual kWh. No software unlocking to 70.

Also much more likely to have free unlimited supercharging.
Unlimited free supercharging is gone, don't expect it will ever return. It disallows all sorts of things like vehicle-to-grid and commercial fleets (not to mention being a rent-seeking economic problem).

The conclusion is still the same, but with 85kWh looking even more likely than 90kWh.
I think we can expect some increase in capacity going from old 18650 to new 2170. 90 might be reasonable (95 seems unlikely only in that Elon was so emphatic that 100 was not (yet) possible).

Thank you kindly.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
6
Location
Phoenix
#25
Someone posted that they thought Tesla would start at a battery pack of 55 and then do 15 step increments, (55,70,85) I'm having difficulty remembering why everybody thinks the Model 3 will have a base pack of 55? Why not starting at what Tesla already has, a 60...Then a 75 and then a 90?

Whatever Tesla decides to do, I just wish they would hurry up and kick out some possible costs associated with the options. Not everybody has a ton of money sitting around...lots of us have to save up and time is running out.
 

Badback

Valued Community Member
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
1,111
Location
Prior Lake, MN
Tesla Owner
Reservation
Country
Country
#26
Someone posted that they thought Tesla would start at a battery pack of 55 and then do 15 step increments, (55,70,85) I'm having difficulty remembering why everybody thinks the Model 3 will have a base pack of 55? Why not starting at what Tesla already has, a 60...Then a 75 and then a 90?

Whatever Tesla decides to do, I just wish they would hurry up and kick out some possible costs associated with the options. Not everybody has a ton of money sitting around...lots of us have to save up and time is running out.
Because Elon tweeted that the base battery pack on the ≡ will be less than 60kWh.
 

KennethK

Top-Contributor
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
575
Location
Michigan
Country
Country
#27
Someone posted that they thought Tesla would start at a battery pack of 55 and then do 15 step increments, (55,70,85) I'm having difficulty remembering why everybody thinks the Model 3 will have a base pack of 55? Why not starting at what Tesla already has, a 60...Then a 75 and then a 90?

Whatever Tesla decides to do, I just wish they would hurry up and kick out some possible costs associated with the options. Not everybody has a ton of money sitting around...lots of us have to save up and time is running out.
Also, the packs on model 3 are all redesigned from those on X and S. So a 60kWh pack on a S does not even have the same dimensions that can be accommodated on a 3. Also the individual batteries are a different size 18x65 vs 21x70.
 

Mad Hungarian

Resident M3OC Wheel/Tire Guru
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
891
Location
Montreal, QC
Country
Country
#28
I offer again as evidence, the BMW M3 blows the doors off of every version of the BMW 7-Series. The 3-Series has been the best selling premium passenger car worldwide for decades. The Lexus IS has routinely sold horribly in comparison to the 3-Series. And the IS was woefully gimped compared to the LS for most of its existence. I think that the BMW strategy works a bit better than the Lexus one.
I bring this exact same point up every time I hear the "they can't upstage the S" argument.
Couldn't agree more.
 

garsh

Dis Member
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
10,406
Location
Pittsburgh PA
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#29

garsh

Dis Member
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
10,406
Location
Pittsburgh PA
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#32
So Randy Carlson has posted another article on Seeking Alpha:
Tesla: Model 3 Update - What To Look For

In this article, he wonders if Tesla can get away with arranging the cells horizontally instead of vertically. In particular, he wonders if chemistry improvements might allow Tesla to get away with having only a single layer of horizontal cells in the packs. Given my calculations of module size above, we could then fit at most (940mm/70mm=) 13 by (330mm/21mm=) 15, or 195 cells/module (Randy estimates 220 cells/module).

This gives (195*8=) 1560 cells for the whole vehicle. In order to get even a 70kWh pack out of this arrangement (since we've heard rumors that this pack size does exist), then each cell must be capable of holding (70000/1560=) 44.9 watt-hours. This would be a HUGE jump from the 12.1 watt-hours contained in current 18650 cells.

Even a double-layer of cells would require 22.5 watt-hours to be contained within each cell. That would allow the battery pack to be 28.5mm thinner (assuming a 0.5mm overlap in rows), which is something, but not a huge win. And this is at least within striking distance of the 18 watt-hours per cell that I calculated above, which assumes that the cell chemistry hasn't changed from the 18650 so that only the volume difference is important. But that would also dash my dreams of owning a P85D Model 3. We shall see.
 
Last edited:

Michael Russo

MSM Team Founder, Midnight S≡R≡NITY rider
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
5,798
Location
Pau, France
Tesla Owner
Model S
Country
Country
#33
So Randy Carlson has posted another article on Seeking Alpha:
Tesla: Model 3 Update - What To Look For
(...) We shall see.
@garsh , thank you. Had posted the same article in the Mixed Bag of Analysts Opinion yet without the deeply grounded analysis you provide here... unfortunately lacking that knowledge...
Also, I like how you end your post... Exactly what I wrote on the other debate re wheels sizes... Time will tell :)
 

Uricasha

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Messages
222
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Tesla Owner
No
Country
Country
#34
So Randy Carlson has posted another article on Seeking Alpha:
Tesla: Model 3 Update - What To Look For
I steer clear from most of the Seeking Alpha articles. They were interesting to read until one day I realized that one guy wrote two opposing articles in the same day.... imo, a lot of it is clickbait.

Your write-up was intriguing though :)
 

garsh

Dis Member
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
10,406
Location
Pittsburgh PA
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#35
I've always steer clear from most of the Seeking Alpha articles. They were interesting to read until one day I realized that one guy wrote two opposing articles in the same day.... imo, a lot of it is clickbait.

Your write-up was intriguing though :)
Randy Carlson's articles are all worthy reading. But so far, he's the only one posting there who considers technology and long-term vision. Everybody else thinks that Tesla should just be trying their darnedest to make a profit ASAP, and they don't even consider the type of technological (and societal) changes that Musk is trying to bring about.
 

TrevP

TOO Founder / Administrator
Founder
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,507
Location
Toronto
Tesla Owner
Model X
Country
Country
#36
So Randy Carlson has posted another article on Seeking Alpha:
Tesla: Model 3 Update - What To Look For

In this article, he wonders if Tesla can get away with arranging the cells horizontally instead of vertically. In particular, he wonders if chemistry improvements might allow Tesla to get away with having only a single layer of horizontal cells in the packs. Given my calculations of module size above, we could then fit at most (940mm/70mm=) 13 by (330mm/21mm=) 15, or 195 cells/module (Randy estimates 220 cells/module).

This gives (195*8=) 1560 cells for the whole vehicle. In order to get even a 70kWh pack out of this arrangement (since we've heard rumors that this pack size does exist), then each cell must be capable of holding (70000/1560=) 44.9 watt-hours. This would be a HUGE jump from the 12.1 watt-hours contained in current 18650 cells.

Even a double-layer of cells would require 22.5 watt-hours to be contained within each cell. That would allow the battery pack to be 28.5mm thinner (assuming a 0.5mm overlap in rows), which is something, but not a huge win. And this is at least within striking distance of the 18 watt-hours per cell that I calculated above, which assumes that the cell chemistry hasn't changed from the 18650 so that only the volume difference is important. But that would also dash my dreams of owning a P85D Model 3. We shall see.
The only problem I have with his thoughts is that Tesla did show the Model 3 CAD model at the reveal event that fairly clearly shows the cells are indeed vertical:



Also, JB stated the new cooling and cell arrangement in the new 100kWh packs are derivatives of the Model 3 system. It's also my belief that Tesla won't be reinventing the wheel here with module layouts. The main cost savings come from a new optimal cell size, chemistry and massive economies of scale.
 

garsh

Dis Member
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
10,406
Location
Pittsburgh PA
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#37
Holy crap, @TrevP! I didn't realize that you could blow up that still image large enough to make out more than modules! It does kind of look like it's showing individual cells.

But I don't think it really is. Recall that I calculated that Tesla can fit 16 rows of 40 cells into each module. From this picture, it looks like each module only contains 8 rows of very, very large cells. So, next best guess is that each of the round bumps at the ends of of the modules is actually a bend in the cooling loop, which spans two rows of cells:


So I agree, it certainly does look like the cells are vertical, and I think this provides further proof that the modules likely contain 16 rows of cells. That makes me feel a bit more confident in my calculations. Furthermore, it appears that 4 of the 16 rows have fewer than the maximum number of cells that would fit within the module's rectangular area. This also occurs in the Model S modules, and provides more reason to believe that a 90kWh battery is not very likely.

Also from the blown-up picture, there appear to be 3 rows of 5 "holes" running down each battery module. There doesn't appear to be anything equivalent in the Model S battery pack, so I'm not sure what to make of these.
 

Badback

Valued Community Member
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
1,111
Location
Prior Lake, MN
Tesla Owner
Reservation
Country
Country
#38
So Randy Carlson has posted another article on Seeking Alpha:
Tesla: Model 3 Update - What To Look For

In this article, he wonders if Tesla can get away with arranging the cells horizontally instead of vertically. In particular, he wonders if chemistry improvements might allow Tesla to get away with having only a single layer of horizontal cells in the packs. Given my calculations of module size above, we could then fit at most (940mm/70mm=) 13 by (330mm/21mm=) 15, or 195 cells/module (Randy estimates 220 cells/module).

This gives (195*8=) 1560 cells for the whole vehicle. In order to get even a 70kWh pack out of this arrangement (since we've heard rumors that this pack size does exist), then each cell must be capable of holding (70000/1560=) 44.9 watt-hours. This would be a HUGE jump from the 12.1 watt-hours contained in current 18650 cells.

Even a double-layer of cells would require 22.5 watt-hours to be contained within each cell. That would allow the battery pack to be 28.5mm thinner (assuming a 0.5mm overlap in rows), which is something, but not a huge win. And this is at least within striking distance of the 18 watt-hours per cell that I calculated above, which assumes that the cell chemistry hasn't changed from the 18650 so that only the volume difference is important. But that would also dash my dreams of owning a P85D Model 3. We shall see.
What about the thickness of the temperature management coils?