Forums

Battery 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

jamilworm | November 6, 2016

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.

EaglesPDX | November 6, 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.

David N | November 6, 2016

"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.

gregcropper | November 6, 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.

KP in NPT | November 6, 2016

Lol!

EaglesPDX | November 6, 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.

Bighorn | November 6, 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.

EaglesPDX | November 6, 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.

KP in NPT | November 6, 2016

As usual, it's best to wait for official announcement from tesla regarding battery sizes/rated range. No one knows anything until then.

Frank99 | November 6, 2016

An interesting undergrad paper analyzing mileage v. weight using EPA data:
link

Bighorn | November 6, 2016

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.

EaglesPDX | November 6, 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.

EaglesPDX | November 6, 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."

Bighorn | November 6, 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."

Bighorn | November 6, 2016

Do you understand why?

Bighorn | November 6, 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.

EaglesPDX | November 6, 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?

Bighorn | November 6, 2016

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.

EaglesPDX | November 6, 2016

@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.

Bighorn | November 6, 2016

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?

KP in NPT | November 7, 2016

As usual, it's best to wait for official announcement from tesla regarding battery sizes/rated range. No one knows anything until then.

EaglesPDX | November 7, 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.

KP in NPT | November 7, 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.

andy.connor.e | November 7, 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.

andy.connor.e | November 7, 2016

@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........

Red Sage ca us | November 7, 2016

OP: It means that many will be surprised by the initial maximum capacity of battery packs for Model ☰, while others may be rather sorely disappointed by the initial minimum capacity offered, meanwhile the initial medium capacity will be thought of as being 'enough' by a lot of people.

cb500r | November 7, 2016

Bighorn is more right than others for me.
Wind energy is the main factor, especially if we are talking about long distance travels.
Mass is important, if it needs to be accelerated and the energy is used to heat disc brakes afterwards.
With recuperation in electric cars, the factor mass is massively reduced.
This is true for rotational masses (e.g. tires) and translative mass (the car).
It's one of the huge effects, making a Prius that efficient, also compared to none or mild hybrids.
Related to mass, we do have the friction in the bearings / sliding surfaces, the inner friction in the materials such as rubber of the tires. That is also a constant factor and will be always there. This factor is speed independent, therefore it is important for milage. Industry already uses a huge amount of methods to reduce this by coatings, material,... so only remaining optimization is at weight and future developments. That's why weight is that important.
If you start to bring your car at speed, then cw start's to count. This factor is neither constant nor linear. It's square to speed, but linear to other cw-values. So reducing cw from 0.24 to 0.21, it will reduce energy waste by 12.5%. In a lecture from a BMW-senior engineer, he has shown that in 2006, at 50mph (80km/h) for a standard BMW, the rolling resistance was at the same level as the air resistance.
As most people make the miles on their cars with trips at above 50mph, this is the main factor.

By the way, air is also one of the main reasons for increased fuel consumption when towing something (caravan, bikes) as it has a huge impact to the cw and often to the "reference cross section A" as well.
Weight is mainly important about how fast something is worn out (contact pressures, wear, fretting,...)

EaglesPDX | November 7, 2016

@mp1156 "Speculate away."

The following are Tesla stated or published facts, not speculation.

1. The T3 will weight 20% less than TS60
2. The T3 will have less than 60 kWh battery.
3. The T3 at 20% less wt and with less than 60 kWh battery will get 215 miles.

SamO | November 7, 2016

Trolls don't do as much research as they used to.

Nexxus | November 8, 2016

@EaglesPDX,

You said: 3. "The T3 at 20% less wt and with less than 60 kWh battery will get 215 miles." as a quote, not speculation.

What Tesla said: "3. The T3 at 20% less wt and with less than 60 kWh battery will get AT LEAST 215 miles." Which leaves open the summation that it can have better mileage than what you stated.

Quit spreading FUD and if you're going to quote TMC do it correctly!

EaglesPDX | November 8, 2016

@Nexxus "What Tesla said: "3. The T3 at 20% less wt and with less than 60 kWh battery will get AT LEAST 215 miles." Which leaves open the summation that it can have better mileage than what you stated."

There's the rub though...if the Tesla stated facts remain true (Tesla could put in a 75kWh battery as it does with the TS60) and does use the less than 60 kWh battery, even if the car weighs 20% less, hard to see it getting more than the 215 range.

You have some here arguing (against engineer facts) that the 20% less weight will have even less effect on increasing the range.

KP in NPT | November 8, 2016

I think we will all be glad when tesla releases actual range on the model 3 battery options so this endless speculation will cease.

OP, wait for Tesla.

andy.connor.e | November 8, 2016

Im pretty sure that EaglesPDX is the troll everyone is talking about. He seems to imply he knows alot about something that has no official numbers yet. I dont think a Tesla employee would be talking so bad about their own product, so i think its safe to say that this guy is doing what all the others seem to do. Attempting to discredit Tesla for aspects that are completely irrelevant to the final product.

Please do yourselves a favor and do not argue with EaglesPDX. Please and thank you.

andy.connor.e | November 8, 2016

Hes like a media outlet. Tesla says some things about their upcoming car, and Eagles wants to tear it apart and interprate it upside down and "report" on all of these speculated reasons why the Model 3 wont be good. Lol. Typical. Lets talk about why an unofficial product release is going to be very bad before we even know what we are getting. LOL!

jordanrichard | November 8, 2016

The only fact of those 3 "facts" is that the base battery will be smaller than 60 kwh.

Please provide the link or video where 215 is listed as the be all, end all range of the entry level battery....... You conveniently left out the words "at least". Meaning there is no official top range number for any of the possible battery packs they will make available, especially the entry level pack.

SamO | November 8, 2016

350 mile top range for the M3.

As much evidence as for M3 with 215 range.

cb500r | November 8, 2016

Just in case that people don't have understood that weight is not the only factor for drive resistance / consumption.
Air is important as well.
Just as another idea of many I could start telling now.
In case that these are the main two and similar rated, then a weight reduction of 20% would end up in a range increase of 10%.
Sorry to state that there will be some additional factors.
That's engineering knowledge and you can call it a fact.

Please also don't follow general statements about fuel reduction per weight.
In my past, I heard that each 100kg weight reduction will end up in 0.1l less fuel consumption.
Does it mean that I can make a heavy car turning into a fuel factory by reducing the weight?

Where Eagle is right is one linear behavior of fuel consumption to weight:
If he will reduce the car weight by 100%, he will also receive 100% less fuel consumption.
Funny, so it is non-linear, but looking at these two points, it could be :-)

EaglesPDX | November 8, 2016

@jordanrichard "The only fact of those 3 "facts" is that the base battery will be smaller than 60 kwh."

So with a 50 kWh battery, what do you think the range of the T3 will be? Previously folks were thinking Tesla was going to packing a higher kWh batter into the car for much higher mileage. But with a 50 kWh battery, it's limited. Tesla would have be making significant advances in controls and motor efficiency to reach the 215 mile range with a 50 kWh battery.

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

"During the call, Evanson also said that the Model 3 will be partially made of aluminum, something Tesla officials said in the past. While the car’s chassis should end up heavier on volume than the all-aluminum Model S, the Model 3 is about 20% smaller than its older brother, which should compensate and help achieve a 215+ miles range on a less than 60 kWh pack."

dd.micsol | November 9, 2016

what it means is fewer cells need to be made to meet the high demand-means faster production if the factory can build the cars fast enough. I don't think the battery production will the be the hold up but rather the freemont factory.
I'd expect mdl 3 top battery to get 350m/chrg. 50% more density.

EaglesPDX | November 9, 2016

@dd.micsol "I'd expect mdl 3 top battery to get 350m/chrg. 50% more density."

It would be hard to reconcile the less than 60 kWh on the T3 providing 215 mile range with fitting in a battery that could get 350 miles. At the most advanced level battery Tesla has now, 350 miles would require a 97 kWh battery. Can't see that fitting into a T3.

That would mean a LOT of empty battery space on the base model T3.

jordanrichard | November 9, 2016

Again, the range of the entry level M≡ will be at least 215 miles. That is all I or any of us know. What we think beyond that is immaterial/speculative and shouldn't be phrased as a fact.

The M≡ will be a 4 door sedan, with a trunk, the entry level battery pack will be less than 60 kwh (unless Tesla changes their mind) and will go at least 215 EPA rated miles. The entry level price will be $35,000 BEFORE any tax credits/incentives. There will be AWD versions and performance versions. It will be a 5 seater and have a 15" screen in the center of the dash in the landscape position. That is all we know for specs.

EaglesPDX | November 9, 2016

Using the current TS75's 3.45 miles per kWh, Tesla could get 172 miles from a 50 kWh battery. Giving the 20% weight reduction of the T3 its full "weight" we'd get 207 miles. Give Tesla another 5% for smaller motors and other efficiencies, 217 miles for a 50 kWh battery.

Another 15 miles for AWD (20% more than current RWD to AWD increase to account for weight reduction) 232 mile range.

dd.micsol | November 9, 2016

@eagles-the new cells can store 65% more energy and are only 25% larger cells. In the same space you can fit 50% more energy. The power walls are getting twice the energy storage. I think my math is more than sound.
The p100l is only at 75% capacity. This is Elon's secret weapon against other EV manu. more energy in less space. Just because it is a model 3 doesn't mean it can't go the furthest. 20% smaller but 65% more energy is about 50% boost in range.

EaglesPDX | November 9, 2016

@dd.micsol "he new cells can store 65% more energy and are only 25% larger cells"

A bit irrelevant to "less than 60 kWh". It could result in even more weight reduction from the stated 20% and, as a result, greater range for the less than 60 kWh battery but end of the day its a lower kWh battery.

akgolf | November 9, 2016

Just save all of Eagles outlandish statements and post them in a troll thread, after the second reveal we can all have a laugh.

akgolf | November 9, 2016

Except for Eagles of course.

EaglesPDX | November 9, 2016

@jsimpsonalaska "Just save all of Eagles outlandish statements and post them in a troll thread, after the second reveal we can all have a laugh."

Chuckle...I've already had the first laugh when the Teslerati got all wound up over the solar glass and how crazy and impossible it was only to have Musk announce he was adding it as an option to the T3 and no doubt to TS and TX lines.

In the case of the T3 basic battery we have Tesla saying it will be less than 60 kWh and the puts some limits on the range of the basic T3.

akgolf | November 9, 2016

And we'll get the last laugh at your expense.

Works for me.

EaglesPDX | November 9, 2016

@jsimpsonalaska "And we'll get the last laugh at your expense."

The royal we no doubt. So far you are losing the competition.

In order to able to say I told you so, you need to tell people something. Tesla has said a less than 60 kWh battery. Based on that, what do you think the range of the T3 will be with a sub 60 kWh battery?

akgolf | November 9, 2016

More than the Dolt and at a lower price.

Pages