Model 3

Battery Model 3

They have doubled the capacity of the powerwall 2 from 7 to 14 kWh... while keeping nearly the same size and weight.
The Model 3 will have the same new battery cells 2070 Used in the powerwall 2.
What does that mean for the battery of the Model 3? Doubled Range? Less weight
«134

Comments

  • edited November -1
    Tesla has known they would be using these new cells for a long time. It's not like the Model 3 group just learned about them at the solar roof event and now they're like "Hey, we originally thought we could go 215 miles but now we can double that range!". This was already factored into their calculations when they made the 215 mile estimate. So it probably just means the battery pack will be much smaller on the 3 than the S.

    Now that's not to say that the base range won't actually exceed 215. I am sure they were being conservative with that estimate and it will likely be somewhat higher.
  • edited November 2016
    This was fairly recent, April 2016 and from Tesla directly.

    https://electrek.co/2016/04/26/tesla-model-3-battery-pack-cost-kwh/

    "Tesla’s Vice-President of Investor Relations, Jeff Evanson, jumped in on the call between Langan and Bereisa to correct their analysis. Evanson stated that Tesla’s battery pack cost is already below $190/kWh – meaning at least 26% less than Bereisa’s current estimate – and that the base Model 3 will be offered with a battery pack option smaller than 60 kWh, like Bereisa assumed."

    "The Model S was originally offered with a 60 kWh battery option which has since been discontinued. The version of the all-electric sedan was advertised with a 208 miles range but is much heavier/bigger than the Model 3."

    The Model S was 20% heavier so that would give the Model 3 a range of 249 RWD and 258 AWD with a 60kWh battery. If less than 60kWh, then one could reduce that range estimate proportionally.
  • edited November -1
    "What does that mean for the battery of the Model 3?"
    Good question.
    I have always assumed that Tesla is the leader in battery technology, meaning that GM is not as advanced as Tesla. Given that there have not been any news on GM having battery breakthrough technology, I think it's a pretty good assumption to say that there is no way in hell Elon is going to be shown up by the Bolts range. I could be wrong, we'll know in less than a year.
    It might come down to a balancing act, cost-vs-range. I think Elon realizes that if he doesn't keep his $35,000 promised target, then the press will jump all over him.
    But he needs to keep margins high also.
    So called "know it calls" in the auto industry continue to claim there is no way he can make any money selling it at $35k.
    Then again, they've been consistently wrong the last 4 Years. I guess that at least makes them consistent.
    I hope Model 3 range with the new battery technology makes headlines in the entire auto industry.
  • edited November 2016
    @ David, I agree. I will be surprised if the base Model ≡ has a range less than the LG Bolt's. As the Bolt is a miniature garbage truck with poor aerodynamics, I don't think it will be a problem for Tesla to do it cheaply.
  • edited November 2016
    Lol!
  • edited November 2016
    @David N "I hope Model 3 range with the new battery technology makes headlines in the entire auto industry."

    It all comes down to kWh and weight. If the Tesla spokesman is correct and the T3 battery is less than 60 kWh the new technology would apply as less cost and less weight not more kWh. If T3 is, as Tesla has stated, 20% less weight and taking the TS60 with the 60kWh battery and it's range of 208 miles, apply the 20% less weight of the T3, you would get 249 RWD and 258 AWD. Then adjust for less than 60 kWh. 55 kWh would be 228 RWD and 236 AWD. 50kWh battery. 207 RWD, 215 AWD. Assuming the 50 kWh, smaller motor, range optimized controllers we get to Tesla 215 mile range for the T3 RWD and 225 for the AWD.

    It may be in this case to extend range will require buying a larger battery which will make people's upgrade decision harder as, like AWD, towing/air-suspension, solar roof, you must buy this options with the car or forego them completely. No software upgrade.

    Saving $5,000 on the range extension, $5,000 for Autopilot and $4,500 for AWD and $5,000 for 4% range extension with solar roof, I'd have my AWD EV with Mt. Hood and Oregon coast round trips and Whistler one stop long range trip for $50,000 less whatever might be left of the Federal Tax credit in late 2018.

    It would make the solar roof's 2-4% adder interesting compared to whatever Tesla would be charging for the battery upgrade.
  • edited November 2016
    You can't assume a linear improvement in range based on weight reduction i.e. a 20% weight reduction does not increase range by 20%. Science does not work that way.
  • edited November 2016
    @Bighorn "You can't assume a linear improvement in range based on weight reduction i.e. a 20% weight reduction does not increase range by 20%"

    Very true but it does provide a +/- 5% ball park for estimation and weight is the single biggest factor in energy efficiency in vehicles. Probably also safe to use the 20% figuring Tesla advances in controls, reduced motor HP and increased efficiency in other areas.

    It does look like the 50 kWh battery and buying a bigger battery, not the software upgrade, to get better range.
  • edited November -1
    As usual, it's best to wait for official announcement from tesla regarding battery sizes/rated range. No one knows anything until then.
  • edited November 2016
    An interesting undergrad paper analyzing mileage v. weight using EPA data:
    <A href="http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/danowitz1/"&gt; link </A>
  • edited November -1
    Wind resistance is the biggest factor in energy efficiency. Weight--not so much. You can use the payload function in evtripplanner.com to easily prove that.

    For the lazy:
    Here's what I put in--a trip from Casper, WY to Sheridan, WY. With zero pounds of payload--it requires 152 rated miles. If you add 1000 pounds of payload, slightly more that a 20% increase in vehicle weight, it requires the same 152 rated miles. How could that be you ask? Well you descend 1384 ft, so the increased weight is offset by the gravitational gains. So let's reverse course and go up 1384 ft, right? No payload--169 rated miles. 1000 pound payload--172 rated miles. Ipso fatso--EaglesPDX don't know shit.
  • edited November 2016
    @mp1156 "As usual, it's best to wait for official announcement from tesla regarding battery sizes/rated range."

    The less than 60 kWh size battery in the T3 was an official Tesla announcement by Jeff Evans to Wall St investors as you see above. I doubt VP's charged with investor relations simply shoot from the hip or Wall St will ignore them and they will be out of a job.

    As Evans noted, due to continued efficiency in $/kWh in the batteries, this was the basis for the $35,000 T3. It also makes sense in regard to Tesla's 215 announcement of the T3's 215 mile range. Based on a 50 kWh battery pack, the 215 range may be the AWD's range with the RWD being less. Tesla could argue this is a fair presentation since over 70% of Tesla's sold are AWD.
  • edited November 2016
    @Bighorn "Wind resistance is the biggest factor in energy efficiency. Weight--not so much. You can use the payload function in evtripplanner.com to easily prove that."

    Well auto engineers and physicists seem to disagree with you.

    https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp

    "An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by about 1%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones."
  • edited November 2016
    You really are a simpleton aren't you. From your refutation:

    "Avoid keeping unnecessary items in your vehicle, especially heavy ones. An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by about 1%.5 The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones."
  • edited November -1
    Do you understand why?
  • edited November 2016
    That little 5 after 1% is a clue:

    5 Based on a fuel economy improvement of 0.33% per 1% reduction in weight as estimated by Ricardo Inc., Impact of Vehicle Weight Reduction on Fuel Economy for Various Vehicle Architectures, April 2008. Our estimate assumes a vehicle weight, including cargo, of 3,200 lbs.
  • edited November 2016
    @Bighorn "You really are a simpleton aren't you. From your refutation:"

    Not mine, that link and reference to effects of weight on mpg or 1% reduction in fuel efficiency for every 100 lbs was from the "simpleton" engineers and scientists at US Dept of Energy, FuelEconomy.gov website.

    Back to the T3 battery though, a 50 kWh battery should provide a substantial weight savings. But it does mean Tesla will be offering a hardware upgrade vs.a software upgrade for more range.

    Likely the Tesla base range will remain 215 with the base battery and price. That leaves Tesla a lot of room for maybe a 75 kWh battery and hitting the magic 300 mile range but likely at substantial cost to the customer. The question would be how much room is there to accommodate a larger battery?
  • edited November -1
    You said it was a 1 to 1 reduction, weight% for efficiency%, while the footnote says 1 to 3 for a car that weighs 1800 pounds less than a Tesla, where the effect is even less in heavier vehicles. Admit your ignorance and then the conversation can continue.
  • edited November -1
    @Bighorn "You said it was a 1 to 1 reduction, weight% for efficiency%, while the footnote says 1 to 3 for a car that weighs 1800 pounds less than a Tesla"

    I'll leave you to argue your case with the engineers and scientists at US Dept of Energy.

    Giving Tesla the benefit of the margin for the T3's less than 60 kWh battery per Tesla's Evans. As noted, Tesla likely has other efficiencies in the T3 such as controls, smaller motor, lower battery weight per kWh, and we know how important weight is in increasing range. Using the generous 20% efficency, we do see how hard it will be for a sub 60 kWH battery to get even the stated 215 range.

    Since longer range will require a different battery, the question becomes how much space is there to increase battery size...and don't forget the importance of how much weight it will add.
  • edited November -1
    It is you arguing with the scientists you invoked. I'm not disagreeing with them. They say it's negligible in heavy vehicles as did I. And I gave empiric evidence as well. Do you think there are people here who don't see through your vapidity?
  • edited November -1
    As usual, it's best to wait for official announcement from tesla regarding battery sizes/rated range. No one knows anything until then.
  • edited November 2016
    @mp1156 "As usual, it's best to wait for official announcement from tesla regarding battery sizes/rated range."

    Well that would kill 99% of the postings on the T3 Forum.

    Fair to say that Tesla's posting on its website that T3 will get 215 miles is official.

    Fair to say VP in Charger of Investor Relations telling a meeting of Wall St analysts that T3 will have "less than 60 kWh battery" and laying out cost per kWh of the new batteries as "official". He's not someone who can just speculate on stuff that turns out to be wrong especially when he states it as fact not speculation.

    We have 20% less weight, we have less than 60 kWh battery. It does give us some numbers to work with. Bighorn argues that the weight is less of a factor (car engineers and scientists disagree but what the heck) so that would put the T3's numbers lower than the 215. With 100(?) prototypes, fair to say Tesla has done the math better than Bighorn and is able to get the 215 miles even with the smaller battery.

    It does mean that getting more than 215 will require a bigger battery vs. a software switch.
  • edited November 2016
    Speculate away. After years of following this company - rather than form an opinion from cobbled together statements I have found much more peace of mind simply waiting for the final word - which in the case of the Model 3 battery will be at the final reveal.
  • edited November 2016
    @Eagles

    Second most significant factor next to weight, is air resistance for range reduction. You forgot about that one too. The lighter the vehicle, the more energy required to negate headwind.
  • edited November -1
    @Eagles

    You are saying that the 215 mile range is official, when the car has not been officially released, nor has realistic numbers been released yet. Hint the term "estimated". Estimated range is not an official range. Please........
Sign In or Register to comment.