Under Promise, Over Deliver

Under Promise, Over Deliver

I enjoy reading the speculative threads here as much as everyone else. And while I think that @VicF is crazy:

I may be crazy, but somehow I think the first Model ≡s will be produced early in Q3 2017.

I cannot fault the optimism nor enthusiasm. In fact if the prediction were to come true I would be very happy just like all the other Grinners here and around the world. We've had quite an emotional roller coaster on the Tesla ride, and I don't see it stopping. Lots of little bits of information have kept us promising to reserve multiple Model ≡s and planning to camp out. I live near the belly of the beast in the South Bay, so I'll see some of you in line early on Mar/31st. If I am very lucky and earn a +1 from some lucky owner, I'll wave at you from The Reveal too. I'm the big guy in the front blocking the view ;^)

Speaking of promises and predictions, what do you think will happen during the Model ≡ Reveal Event? Will Elon under promise and then over deliver?

I believe that Elon and Tesla have learned some important lessons from past product/feature introductions:

Almost no matter how cool a new feature/product is, people will complain about it—the 'D' and Autopilot.
When Tesla reveals a feature people expect to see it in the final version—Model X folding 2nd row.
Keeping interest in Tesla does not rely on advertising especially when Elon makes positive pronouncements—PowerWall.
People care about the appearance (and practices) of fairness—lottery for M≡ invitees.
People are willing to cancel reservations if they do not get what they want; People are willing to wait years in the darkness to get a Tesla
Details of how things will work like pricing, options, leasing, etc. are not necessary for people to spend $5K/$40K to reserve a chance to place an order w/o a first-come-first-served promise
Sometimes more communication is worth the trouble—letting owners know they did not win the invite lottery.

Some other ideas that Elon and Tesla know about or promise:

Short interest in TSLA is at an all-time high.
Tesla's goal is not to make toys for the rich, but to accelerate the transition to renewable transportation.
Over 95% of owners recommend Tesla or would buy their car again.
Although Tesla has "solved" range anxiety, most non-owners and some owners are still anxious at least part of the time.
It will take an enormous capital investment to design and build the Model ≡ and the infrastructure necessary to support it (Superchargers and Gigafactory).

I hope they have learned:

People care if the events seem organized and start on time—limiting invitations to M≡ Reveal.
Providing an online live stream is far better than letting others try to
It is better to under promise, then to over deliver.

Some facts, predictions and rumors we have heard, but we cannot be sure about the devil in their details. In fact some statements from Elon, JB, and others at Tesla contradict other statements.

The Model ≡ will be 20% smaller than the Model S
The Model ≡ will be unlike any other car
The Model ≡ will be similar to the Model S (and the Model Y will be similar to the Model X)
We are not sure how different the Model ≡ will be
The Model ≡ will get better than 200 miles of "real world" range
We are not sure how much we will reveal about the Model ≡
The Model ≡ will cost around $35K before any incentives
The Model ≡ will compete w/ the BMW 3-Series, the gold standard in its market segment
We will only reveal one car on Mar/31st
The Gigafactory is vital to the Model ≡; you cannot have one w/o the other
The Model ≡ will have next-generation technology
The complexity of the Model X was too high—it's the hardest car in the world to build; Tesla will focus on making the Model ≡ easy to build
The Model ≡ will use 20700 instead of 18650 cells
Cost savings for the Model ≡ battery packs come from the Gigafactory—shipping, import tariffs, taxes, economies of scale, supply chain management, and natural evolution from building them under one roof.
"Maximum Plaid" speed is reserved for the next Roadster—Space Balls Ludicrous Speed (thanks @Chunky Jr.)
Reservations will be taken at 10AM Pacific for Model ≡; employees will reserve their Model ≡s before anyone else; previous owners will get reservation priority; online reservations start when the event starts at 8:30 PM Pacific
Elon said during the Q4 earnings call the most heavily optioned cars will be built first
The press will be able to test drive "what we have been working on so far" the day of the reveal event

I don't expect Elon to reveal everything about the Model ≡. There are still several things out of Tesla's control that will affect it (like side-view mirror requirements). In some ways I hope Elon keeps it more vague than he has been before. For example, promising a next-generation release of Autopilot (especially hardware) may impact sales of existing models. I am not one to bemoan Tesla's practice of iterative progress w/o relying on model years, but I understand how residual value is impacted by the practice.

The Model S was originally touted as a $50K car. Economics/costs got in the way, and that price was increased to $60K. Also, sales of low-range versions languished until the MS-70D w/ Autopilot was released as the new base. The Model ≡ has been billed as a $35K car to the point where this base price seems unavoidable. Tesla builds electric vehicles that are much better than their ICE vehicle competition or at least that is one of their main goals. We Grinners agree, but others need to be convinced.

What information (promises) should Elon reveal to help w/ a successful launch of the Model ≡ in about two years?

Base price of $35K before incentives
EPA 5-Cycle projected range of 220 miles; that "extra" 10% helps w/ real-world difficulties like weather
Supercharger access explained w/ plans for expansion detailed; I like the free access for life approach, but JB has predicted that 1M cars is where things change from "free" to something else
Launch/production schedule w/ details about planned ramp in production; what would trigger a need for more capacity; how long are we going to wait;
Battery pack options w/ approximate projected EPA/freeway-speed range (nice numbers, rounded down for example, 264 becomes ~260)
I'd like Elon to say something like, "The Model ≡ will have similar options to today's Model S, like pano roof, dual-motor and performance versions."
I would love to hear about the high-level goals he gave the engineers about the spirit of the car and what Elon sees as the main differences between the Model ≡ and the Model S.

You will notice I did not list 0-60 times or top speed. But, I do expect Elon to mention some approximate numbers since this is where the press can fill in the blanks of their Madlibs articles. I'm not a slave to basic performance numbers. The MS-40 I drove was almost as much fun as the MS-P85DI I took to Santa Barbara and the MS-P85DL I test drove at Santa Anita Racetrack (where I could floor it in the enormous parking lot w/o concern for traffic or tickets). EV instant torque is great. Tesla's driving dynamics are a joy. I fully expect the Model ≡ to come in a P##DL variant w/ ridiculous, grin-inducing performance. I bet the base model will be pretty great too.

P.S. Apologies for not linking to references to my proclamations. Normally I would include HTML links w/in them, but Mollom is terrible about thinking links w/in a post are automatically Spam.

P.P.S. Yes, these long posts take a fair bit of time. I re-read them a few times and make a few edits, but rarely delete much. Long-time forum members will not be surprised by the length of my original posts. I do hope they are enlightening and entertaining, while being a little long. That's what I get for not having an editor.

P.P.P.S. My comments post-reveal on April 1st (so you don't need to go searching):
They started almost right on time (I think it was 8:34 PM), and it seems from Event videos posted and comments by attendees that Tesla did a great job. The live stream worked well for most of us.
They kept to a high level of detail
Not quite the 220 miles I hoped for (215 EPA), but Elon said they hope to surpass it
Will only reveal one car — check
Gigafactory is vital to the Model ≡ — check
Test drives for everyone — even better
Supercharger access explained w/ plans for expansion detailed — almost, access to Superchargers is still being explored by Tesla; Part 2 of M≡ reveal as production approaches will likely have this detail.
Launch/production schedule w/ details about planned ramp in production — almost, but even if they had discussed ramp up, the overwhelming response would have changed those plans (glad they kept it simple)
Battery pack options w/ approximate projected EPA/freeway-speed range — nope, they under promised this one; see Part 2 M≡ reveal
Similar options to today's Model S, like pano roof, dual-motor and performance versions — nope, they under promised this one; see Part 2 M≡ reveal; test drivers did give some of these details though

Red Sage ca us | 20 mars 2016

JeffreyR: +42! The Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything about "What Do We Know and Hope for Tesla Model ≡?"

To the first point, I agree that in order to have proper demos available to populate Tesla Stores/Galleries by the beginning of Q4 2017, Tesla Motors must begin building cars for that purpose no later than Q3 2017. They must avoid the situation they are enduring with Model X, where people have waited already three or four years and have never seen the car in person.

I do believe that unveiling the Model ≡ this month is appropriate. Since it is tied to the Gigafactory, it is important that the first cars reach their buyers within 18-to-24 months. Further, they must hit the ground running with actual Production of cars that are ordered, at no less than a 2,000 unit per week rate, and ramping up as quickly as possible to twice that, while maintaining quality control.

Chunky Jr. | 20 mars 2016

nice writeup!

minor correction : it is "maximum plaid", not "ultimate plaid"

JeffreyR | 20 mars 2016

Thanks for the support you two. I've made minor fixes (like yours @Chinky Jr.). It's amazing what gets through even a few rough drafts. Here's hoping some of this shows up on 3/31.

PhillyGal | 20 mars 2016

Great write up!

diegoPasadena | 20 mars 2016

That was a nice read. Thanks, JeffreyR.

Bluesday Afternoon | 20 mars 2016


From your keyboard to Elon's eyes. Nicely done!

@Red Sage

With the Gigafactory ahead of schedule and the encouraging reviews of Fremont's expansion, why not a Q3 launch for Model 3? A July 4th launch would be "revolutionary" for changing the world.

Red Sage ca us | 21 mars 2016

Simply Red: My earliest, most optimistic expectations for the launch of Tesla Model ≡ had Customers placing their final Orders in the Design Studio during Q2 2017, perhaps April/May 2017, and taking Delivery during July 2017. The only reason I now push that off a bit is because Elon Musk has specifically stated that first Deliveries of Model ≡ would be in 'late 2017' instead. Worst case, the launch will be just like the Model X, where a handful of people receive their cars on/about October 1, 2017... Then only a few hundred more get it by December 31, 2017... Again, my hope is that it happens much quicker than that, so that on the order of 24,000-to-36,000 Deliveries of Model ≡ are made prior to the end of calendar year 2017.

JeffreyR | 21 mars 2016

@Simply Red: "From your keyboard to Elon's eyes. Nicely done!"


claudealaval | 21 mars 2016

Next week (the 31st) will be a great day for Tesla. I think they will unveil something very nice. They have to because Tesla share owners wants a jump in the share-value. I don't expect to have a model3 for the price of an S so I don't put the bar to high either. The only thing that could put me off is if the car came on the market with more than 18 months from now. I don't think it will happen since it's a more ''generic'' car that will be showed with no hoopla like retractable handle or falcon wings...

SUN 2 DRV | 22 mars 2016

"Under promise and over deliver" is an obvious strategy but it's nevertheless a naive and trite idea for those who aren't out to change the world.

Elon drives Tesla to achieve amazing things by using "Stretch goals", asking people to do more than they think they're capable of. When Tesla shares their plans, we need to take them not as commitments but as the well intentioned "Stretch Goals" that they are.

Tesla has proven very good at delivering What Elon says, but not by When he'd like. And frankly I hope they continue to deliver insanely great products even if they're often a little late.

chrispga | 22 mars 2016

Where did you read the Model 3 would use 20,700 cells? This blew my mind when I read what you wrote. Link please? Either way, I'm ordering on March 31st. I've never been more excited for anything in my life.

chrispga | 22 mars 2016

Also, who are you? You have a distortion cloud free view of Tesla as a company.

JeffreyR | 22 mars 2016

JB has mentioned the 20700 cell form factor several times. I believe the Stanford talk from 2014 he talks about them explicitly.
As to who I am... I'm the one who wrote the General section "Tips & Tricks" and the "Cause of the Tesla Grin" posts. I also started the "How are the Model S and Model ≡ Different" post. Much of the info in that post and its comments are listed above.

In other words, I've been an active forum member for years. That's why I can (and am now) type Model ≡ on my iPhone.

JeffreyR | 22 mars 2016

I am all for Elon stretching goals and pushing Tesla to new heights. I don't equate public pronouncements to be equal to internal company motivation.
Do I want Elon to carefully go over every word of his reveal and sound like every Fortune 500 CEO pitching a legally binding contract? No.
I don't think delivering more than you reveal/promise as a goal would hold Tesla back. On the contrary I think Elon has said he demands Tesla does deliver better than they reveal in these Events.

I agree w/ the main point of pushing the envelope for sure! | 22 mars 2016

@Jeffery: You summed things up as perfectly as anyone outside of TMC could.

Here are a couple of speculative additions.

I think the M≡ will weigh about 3800 pounds. I think the drag coefficient won't be as low as Elon's .20 target but will be under .23. I think the effective cross-section for air resistance will be about 15% less than the S. I believe the base battery pack will be 55 kWh, 5 of which will be held in reserve. It might make sense to use the 289 hp drive unit of the nonperformance D models as the RWD drive unit for the M≡. 0-60 in about 5 seconds. Might have more cameras for AP than the S or X, following the MobileEye direction.

Might reveal both a sedan and a crossover on 3/31.

The 20700 form factor makes sense out the gate at the GF because new tooling et al is needed no matter what size the cells are and works because of the headroom available in the existing battery box for the S and X. Increased capacity with no change in chemistry or electrodes = 33%/cell. Because of the increased diameter, ~10% fewer cells will fit in a pack, netting a 20% increase in total capacity. 90 kWh becomes 108 kWh with 6400 cells. 55 kWh needs about 3200 cells, a little over 400 pounds plus the box et al.

What do you think?

JeffreyR | 22 mars 2016


Thanks for the positive feedback. I definitely appreciate all the information that we share here and at Tesla Motors Club (though I spend most of my time here). I realized that my recollection of JBS mentioning 20700 cell form factor is not clear enough to find the video where I saw him mention it.

Randy Carlson has done some interesting work on the Model ≡ and its battery pack. If you volkerize his name you'll see some excerpts from Seeking Alpha that @Brian H and I have copied over here to avoid click bait there. Here is an article on Clean Technica that references RC's thoughts on the 20700 cells:

"Lighter Batteries May Prove The Tipping Point For Electric Vehicles"

Some other thoughts:

I would be surprised if they release the Model Y mid-size crossover at the reveal this March. Elon has mentioned (Tweeted I think) he wants to focus on a single car in March. I would love it if they did show the Model Y, but I think they want to do a similar evolution from M≡ to MY as they did from MS to MX. One thing that reinforces that conjecture for me is the knowledge that Tesla had to find a new vendor to supply the Model X's Falcon Wing Doors (FWD) early last year (at the last moment). Elon mentioned this in the Q4 call and was optimistic that the problems w/ getting the FWD produced were behind them. But, he has also hinted that the Model Y would have FWD too. So I doubt they want to promise another car that would need this constrained resource.

Randy Carlson's concept of using gaps in the battery pack (BP):

To allow for more space and taller pack modules seems a bit complicated to me, but not ridiculous. To me JBS's thoughts on this (that I recall, but cannot seem to find) are simple and your math shows as well. If you have a slightly bigger cell you can increase capacity w/o losing too much in the rest of the car. And, because you need the same safety/cooling infrastructure in the BP this increased capacity by slightly increasing volumes seems like a natural improvement.

Elon knows that being "coy" on topics sometimes generates even more press than being explicit/complete which is part of the inspiration of the under-promising concept in my OP above. I am with you on the next-gen Autopilot technology being part of the Model ≡ design and plans. But, I think that Elon may keep this information close instead of putting it out there. Like a dual-motor Model S before the Model X, I imagine that improved Autopilot will be released in the Model S/X before it is in the Model ≡. That way they get real-world exposure on the new design before they need to include it in the Model ≡.

danCE | 22 mars 2016

The one thing that bothers me about Randy Carlson's concept is that it would result in a "tunnel" in the rear seat footwell. Not a transmission tunnel as in a front-engine, rear wheel drive ICE, but the same effect. And I think Tesla will do everything possible to avoid this and reinforce that EVs are different!

JeffreyR | 22 mars 2016

...They have to [reveal a 'very nice' Model ≡] because Tesla share owners wants a jump in the share-value. I don't expect to have a Model ≡ for the price of a Model S so I don't put the bar too high either.... I don't think it will happen since it's a more 'generic' car that will be showed with no hoopla like retractable handle or falcon wing [doors].

(My session expired on this comment, I lost my original text. So here goes again.... Must. remember. Ctrl-A + Ctrl-C before. submitting!)

Tesla is focusing on their mission of accelerating the transition to sustainable transport. They will not ignore basic business practices, but they will not only work towards quarterly results. Rather they will take the approach of producing excellent and desirable products that will not only demonstrate that an EV can do as well as an ICEV, but in many cases do much better.

Remember that Tesla has stated several times that the base price of the Model ≡ will be half the base price of the Model S, $35K. Also, they have said that the Model ≡ will compete w/ the BMW 3-Series, Audi A4/S4, MB C Class, etc. These are not generic cars. So keep your bar nice and high. I fully expect the base Model ≡ to be a quick and nimble performer. The PDL version will be draw dropping.

Elon has said that he wants the drag coefficient (Cd) to be super low for the Model ≡, so I expect it will have aerodynamic door handles. Typical handles stick out too much and cause too much drag. They may be more like the Model X's toggle handles instead of extending/retracting, but they should drive flush w/ the body. Also, the Model Y mid-size crossover has been hinted at having FWD too.

Finally, I expect the Model ≡ price to range from $35K to at least $70K. Sure, some folks will be budget limited and get the base version. But, I fully expect the Average Sales Price (ASP) to be at least $50K. Tesla has a lot of room for margin when they can charge $10K for Performance/Ludicrous upgrades.

JeffreyR | 22 mars 2016

@danCE +1
While I understand his desire to lower the car and not lose head room and leg room, I am with you. It seems like too much. It will make the battery pack too unwieldy and evidence of the compromise will be too reminiscent of the transmission/drive shaft tunnel as you point out.

My hope is that a next-generation battery pack (BP) will work in all versions of Teslas. That way you simple depopulate to get a smaller, cheaper capacity, but economies of scale kick in for the whole line. Obviously the work they have done on BP design up to now dictates where connectors go and other mundane things. It will be interesting to see what there approach is.

Red Sage ca us | 22 mars 2016

FYI... I've never read Randy Carlson's reports, because they were initially linked from the website [SINKING ANCHOR], which I do not like. Nice to know that they are well regarded here, but I know nothing of them first hand.

I have not seen anything from anyone at Tesla Motors that gave a specific size/shape/specification for battery cells to be used in future iterations of battery packs built at the Gigafactory for use in Generation III vehicles such as the Model ≡. What JB Straubel and Elon Musk mentioned, around July 2014 was that the optimum size for battery cells they have seen in the laboratory was about 10% taller and wider than an 18650.

Lots of enthusiasts then made their own calculation for what that would equal. So, an 18.6 mm diameter becomes 20.46 mm... and a 65.2 mm overall length becomes 71.72 mm. Those enthusiasts then chose to round to the nearest fives to imagine a 20700 battery cell. Basically, they attributed their own calculations to be something that Tesla Motors had said, when they had not.

This is similar to reports that have circulated since 2013 where people claimed Elon has said the Model ≡ would have a 48 kWh battery back. He hadn't actually said that. He was speaking of the entry level Model S 60 and saying that when Generation III vehicles arrived they would be '20% smaller'. I took that as meaning volume and/or weight. Others took it as meaning the capacity of the battery pack, so they used 80% of 60 kWh and declared 48 kWh.

If I'm wrong on this, please do provide a link to JB Straubel or Elon Musk specifying otherwise. | 23 mars 2016

@jeffery: lots of folks thinking the same way. Thanks for the reference. Discussions of battery energy density improvements are high speculative my rife with uncertainties since battery development is such a black art. The speculative 20700 cell idea, whatever Tesla is really going to do, has a key requirement: the need to fit into the box used by the S and X models. The height limitation is what suggests a 10% increase from 65 mm. Without changing the electrode composition or the chemistry, the aggregate larger cells weigh more but you get more energy per pound of car so that's not a bad thing. It will be a big plus if one day there is a breakthrough in battery development that increases the capacity of a given cell per unit weight, reduces the thermal runaway susceptibility, decreases the rate of degradation, reduces the total charging time, and costs less per unit energy. Holy Grail, Dr. Science!

I'm not crazy about the "step-ladder" design for the battery box--not impossible but less structural integrity, higher construction and material cost per unit energy and more difficult to maintain temperature range. | 23 mars 2016

Highly speculative, rife...

Hi_Tech | 23 mars 2016

@chrispga - I had similar initial reaction: 20,700 cells??? Then realized they were referring to the form factor, not number of cells. Then again, using some of the above figures, 20k cells would result in about 350-400kwh battery pack. I'm all for that! *giggidy giggidy... awww yeah*

Hi_Tech | 23 mars 2016

@Jeffery, @Red Sage, @George - Thank you for the information here. This is a great discussion and very informative, even if it is a bit speculative. :)

jordanrichard | 23 mars 2016

I too believe Tesla may pull another fast one, in a good way, and announce that the Model ≡ will actually be on the road sooner. It is a fact that the Model ≡ is solely dependent on the gigafoctory. It is also a fact that the gigafactory construction is ahead of schedule..... just saying. | 23 mars 2016

@jordan: Don't worry. Elon will find a way to make it hard to build. :-))

PhillyGal | 23 mars 2016

It's so hard to think logically about Model 3 production.
On one hand, you want to be very understanding. No car companies spring out of infancy into half million annual vehicles overnight. No new car companies really succeed at all. It's going to take several quarters, if not years, for M3 to go from Production model 1 to being able to produce hundreds of thousands per year. Which means that the 100,000 people that may reserve by 4/1 may very well span an entire year or more of production dates.

But, but.... we want them now! Screw logic.

JeffreyR | 23 mars 2016

@Red Sage
I agree that I may have fallen victim to a speculative theory vs. a new design proposal. My memory is fuzzy on this, but I thought it was in a video which makes it hard to search for. Hmmm I wonder if it was in a Dr, Jeffrey Dahl video and not JB at all. I'll have to see about that. At the time of filming he had not been hired by Tesla yet. So it would have been speculation on his part for sure.
In the end we may not know until the first Model ≡ tear down any way. It's not like they need to get into these details to sell the car. All they need to say is "it's got more juice in a physically smaller pack." I'm sure most people outside these forums would be perfectly happy w/ that.

Like @PhillyGall says, screw logic and give me my Model ≡!

JeffreyR | 23 mars 2016

To save you searching for them, here are the RC articles that have made it here:

Randy Carlson: Tesla’s Real Competition

Randy Carlson: Tesla - Gigafactory Tipping Point

Red Sage ca us | 23 mars 2016

President georgehawley: 65 mm is not very tall. It is just shy of 2.6 inches. At 4" thick, a battery pack is around 102 mm tall. With an 1/4" thick aluminum casing all around, you'd subtract 1/2" total, leaving 3-1/2" to work with. Maybe subtract another 1/8" for the 1/16" thick casing on each battery module within the battery pack, for a 3-3/8" vertical space (3.375"). So, even if the battery cells increased in height by 10%, from 65 mm to 71.5 mm, or 2.81" or so... A whopping difference of 6.5 mm (0.256") There would still be quite a bit of space for them to fit, more than half an inch left over (0.565"). Height would not be a problem for these mythical taller battery cells at all.

Madatgascar | 23 mars 2016

Totally speculative here, but I'm wondering if they might announce a set of low earth orbit satellites dedicated to improving the connectivity and autopilot performance of the entire fleet. You know, some SpaceX synergy.

Red Sage ca us | 23 mars 2016

tbouquet: +1! I am certain that is coming too... SOON. | 24 mars 2016

I just wrote a battery design post worthy of a Nobel prize but I was forced to log in in the middle of it and the draft post disappeared. Now I forget what it was. Is everybody happy?

I like @PhillyGal's no buts attitude.

JeffreyR | 26 mars 2016

I've noticed that the session timer is very short now. Make sure to either compose outside the browser or copy the text before submitting.

dd.micsol | 27 mars 2016

Buy the stock for now and dream about the car. That's my medicine.

Chunky Jr. | 27 mars 2016

@JeffreyR ; I have noticed that as well. Very annoying. Not sure if a bug or a deliberate decision.

Ankit Mishra | 27 mars 2016

It's happens with me too. I let that the tab remain open with the error message. I open forums in another tab and then do the login there. Then after I have logged in, I go back to the tab and press back button. The post that I wrote is just sitting there waiting for me to push the submit button.

dd.micsol | 27 mars 2016

If you're doing a long post-use word or some other text editor-and yes copy paste it after logging in. If you're posting a picture it will take a while to upload and be checked by the server then employee before posting.

Chunky Jr. | 27 mars 2016

You can compose in browser, but select all and then copy before submitting. If you get bumped, just log back in and paste.

steven | 27 mars 2016

I see Elon announcing a major range/weight advancement in conjunction with M≡.
April news will reveal X and S doubling down on this to maintain their premium flagship status.

JeffreyR | 28 mars 2016

I assume you are referring to "a major [battery pack] range [and/or] weight advancement in conjunction w/ the M≡ [reveal on March 31st]."

There certainly are many rumors pointing to something changing w/ or around the M≡ reveal.

Folks have reported being warned about increases in price in April. Although, that could be a consequence of some promotions expiring.
The deciphering of the P100D hash on TMC definitely points to a planned increase at some point.
The recent upgrade from 85- to 90-kWh battery pack due to changes in chemistry/construction.
The rumored/conjectured transition from 18650 to 20700 form-factor cells.
The simple fact it has been several years since the Model S battery pack was designed and we know that cells improve around 5% per year on average. Although the recent release of the Model X seems to show a conservative improvement at best.

It seems that referring to the battery pack options of the M≡ may be one of the cards that Elon keeps under wraps. He may refer to improvements and how the current version being shown on the 31st uses "today's" technology which Tesla will definitely improve the battery pack before the release.

The thing that I have the most trouble understanding is what about the Model X. How can Tesla justify a dramatic change in BP technology w/o disappointing a bunch of people? Maybe, as several people here have predicted, that Tesla has used software to limit battery pack capacity like the MS-40. It just seems too far fetched and troublesome. We'll see. I know that most folks would love a big increase in BP capacity.

Red Sage ca us | 28 mars 2016

JeffreyR: I have for some time thought of it as the '70% Principle'... People want the stated range of their electric cars to be equivalent to driving at 90+ MPH up hill on a 6% grade through hub deep snow at -40 degrees Fahrenheit in a car that was only charged to 90% and only drained to 20%... Then they want that distance covered to be no less than 350 miles. Oh, and then they want to 'fill up' in less than a mythical 'five minutes' -- including the trip down the offramp and looking for a Supercharger. Basically, they want to reserve the top 10% of their battery capacity, while never endangering the 20% buffer on the low end. Thus, never actually using more than 70% of their capacity.

Hi_Tech | 29 mars 2016

Anyone know the battery form-factor cells leveraged in the PowerWall units coming out of the Gigafactory? Maybe that gives a clue on the updated planned.

JeffreyR | 29 mars 2016

@TeoTeslaFan put together a great post on batteries way back in May 2015.

Predictions for new battery

Here are few excerpts:

July/2014 Con Call:
25:34 Elon Musk: "There are improvements to the chemistry, as well as improvements to the geometry of the cell. So we would expect to see an energy density improvement and of course a significant cost improvement."

At SoCal Energy Summit JB Straubel used the following image in his presentation.

JeffreyR | 29 mars 2016

@Red Sage +1 You forgot about the 30 M.P.H. of headwind.

The geek in me really hopes that Elon talks about progress of cell and battery pack design at the Gigafactory during The Reveal. The jock in me just wants to see the Model ≡ beat a BMW M3 in a drag race. The dreamer in me wants a huge base BP and dual-motor AWD by Q3 2017 for only a little bit more than the base price. The fan in me just wants to be a part of this Huge Change.

Red Sage ca us | 30 mars 2016

JeffreyR: I remember when I used to read TeoTeslaFan's posts. Then I noticed that some of them seemed to disagree with others of his own that were in the same thread. Then I noticed how he would argue with me even over the parts where I agreed with him. Then I realized that though I may be an Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Certified Apologist Fanboy, he was very much a loon.

And yes, I forgot about the gusting gale force headwinds. I'll have to add that to the script. I first came up with the '70% Principle' back when I tried to get people to specify what they meant when they said 'Drive It Like You Stole It!' People want to be able to continue using the same bad habits they maintained while driving an ICE when they drive an electric vehicle. They vehemently resist the calm, reasoned advice that they should take the time to learn how to drive an EV properly and responsibly.

Hence, why the base Model ☰ should come with a 100 kWh battery pack standard.

JeffreyR | 31 mars 2016

Tens of thousands of reservations were made before noon Pacific Time today. I sure hope that Elon announces how many reservations were made today during the reveal event. He's also tweeted that those of us that waited in line will get "a little something" extra. Someone had the idea that it could be a toy Model ≡ through the mail. Maybe a t-shirt. Heck I'd take a hard to counterfeit PDF w/ a number on it that I could get printed for myself.

What "little something" would you appreciate?

logicalthinker | 31 mars 2016

a little something? How about a predicted delivery date?

logicalthinker | 31 mars 2016

I agree it would be **totally awesome** if the Model ≡ came with a 100kWh pack standard... but then basically the Model S & Model X would at MINIMUM require a 100kWh pack standard.

I have to say I will be shocked if the Model ≡ comes with a 100kWh pack standard. Pleasantly shocked.