teslamotorclub: Prediction: One battery for Model 3 part 1

The "new" 60, that's really a software locked 75 got me thinking. If Tesla has the margins to be able to offer a single battery with a software lock on the Model S and still turn a profit, It's probably going to be the same on the 3.

One battery, software locked at the low end, full realized (no lock) on the high end.

Simplifies manufacturing not just from the battery side, but also the power output required for "P" models and faster supercharging speeds would all be included in every car. Less different hardware, less inventory of parts, simple repairs.
Probably software unlock for the high end charger like we have currently on S & X.
The model 3 might be heavy on the options that are software unlockable.

Thoughts?
�

I think it is dependant on the margin at $35k, or perhaps $42, since that is what EM said he thinks the mean 3 will sell for. Unfortunately, I think full battery, AP2 hardware, full charging hardware might turn out to be too expensive in aggregate ... But we can cross our fingers.
�

It's very unlikely. Tesla won't have the same leeway with the Model 3 when it comes to cost control. And battery cells will still cost money on the Model 3, even if battery costs are reduced greatly. Basically if Tesla includes the larger battery on every car, they will likely lose money on every 215 mile car.

The only reason Tesla is offering the 60 kWh Model S is that they need a car to ramp up production with going into the Model 3 production. I'm thinking they will be producing cars at a rate of 3000-4000 cars/week in mid-2017, and there just won't be sufficient demand for the Model S and Model X without reducing the purchase cost.

Once the Model 3 goes into production, they will eliminate the 60 kWh Model S, and the Model 3 will be their low-cost alternative.
�

Very unlikely. Batteries cost money and tesla has a bottom line to protect. Assuming that the Model III has a 55, 75, 85 battery range, Tesla's cost would cost around 2400 @ $120/Kwh if they used the 75Kwh as the standard. However if they make batteries with a modular nature and dummy modular packs. It might be possible that Tesla could easily upgrade leased cars to make a larger profit per car. Although, such a system would be unlikely is completely plausible.
�

Upgrade ability via software - sure. One battery option, physically? Unlikely.
�

JoRey said: ?

Assuming that the Model III has a 55, 75, 85 battery range
Click to expand...

Yes please, or even 90 for the max.

*expects flood of messages stating that the model 3 can't have 85 or bigger battery*
�

Along the lines of the modular idea posted above, why couldn't the Model 3 have TWO battery packs? One ~55 KW battery as the base pack, then if someone wants the larger battery, simply bolt in a second smaller pack somewhere to increase total capacity to 80 or 90 KW, or whatever the top capacity will be?

With a few extra mounting bolts in the bottom of the car, the base battery could be center mounted, then if someone wants the second one as well, shift the 55 battery back to the rear mounts and screw the second one into place in front of it? This can work, and minimize inventory costs!

Tesla, if you're reading this, I'd like a large battery Model 3 with a hefty discount for suggesting this idea, please.
�

Regardless of physical battery options, they still need to be both price and range-competitive with other EVs in the same market. If they want to maximize adoption of their car, they'd offer the highest range possible, for a price, while also offering a suitable shorter range to keep base price low.

Providing both price point and range may well require two different packs, prob both with software unlocking.
�

Everyone wants more range. Who doesn't. But my guess is that people that buy a M3 may not want to pay a few to several thousand dollars to unlock the capability initially. Perhaps having the space available under the car to easily and quickly add a 15 kWh pack or two might more sense.

Like LED lightbulbs that were too expensive for most to buy initially, they are quite cheap and common now. We're all hearing the cost per kWh of battery will be coming down. If Tesla is gambling on a lot cheaper batteries in three years or so, I wouldn't expect lots of extra batteries to be thrown in cars at a high cost in (2017) for unknown demand at little ROI for Tesla.

More important for me would be the ability to have battery packs replaced or added at competitive prices from a third party source. Who goes back to their ICE car dealer for a new battery when one is required?
�

I would say that even with the Model S, the software limited 60 is only a temporary solution. They might just want to test how well a 60 kWh battery might be received and if it would make sense to sell a smaller pack with the next generation cell.

But the 3 is a lot more cost sensitive when it comes to batteries than the S. Assuming a $190 per kWh rate, 15kWh of savings are just $2.850. Not really that much for a Model S, but even half of that would be a lot for the Model 3. I guess Tesla will want to keep the production costs of the 3 as small as possible, just because the margin will be rather small. The S on the other hand has a margin almost as big as the Model 3 base price, so you can sacrifice a lot more profit. The production and the sales price will be a lot closer with the 3, which is typical for a more mass market car, compared to a low volume luxury car.
�

Yggdrasill said: ?

It's very unlikely. Tesla won't have the same leeway with the Model 3 when it comes to cost control. And battery cells will still cost money on the Model 3, even if battery costs are reduced greatly. Basically if Tesla includes the larger battery on every car, they will likely lose money on every 215 mile car.

The only reason Tesla is offering the 60 kWh Model S is that they need a car to ramp up production with going into the Model 3 production. I'm thinking they will be producing cars at a rate of 3000-4000 cars/week in mid-2017, and there just won't be sufficient demand for the Model S and Model X without reducing the purchase cost.

Once the Model 3 goes into production, they will eliminate the 60 kWh Model S, and the Model 3 will be their low-cost alternative.
Click to expand...

Not to get too far off topic, but it seems Tesla's is finally getting to some meaningful production. at lets say that they do manage to ramp up to 3-4k cars per week by mind 2017, is this going to affect the model 3 federal rebates in a negative way (meaning do you think they'll run out sooner than predicted?)
�

Oh, I don't know. Tesla is revisiting the Model S 60 about a year after they discontinued it in favor of the 70. This battery "unlocking" might be a test market for the Model 3 battery strategy.

Maybe Tesla is seeing just how many sales they get with the plain vanilla 60, how many upgrade to the 75 upon order, and how many upgrade after delivery. There will likely be enough sales of the 60/75 for Tesla to see how popular this sort of software-restricted battery is. This data could determine whether to offer this option for the Model III for all battery sizes or perhaps only for the largest size.

Tesla wants to move a lot of vehicles. They will need an enormous number of cells. It might make best use of capital to have the low-end battery(s) with a fixed size. Why have a bunch of inert cells installed in a car that is not going to use them, when those same cells could be used in another vehicle? And I am not clear if a "one-size fits all" battery is cheaper to manufacture and assemble in the long run.

It would make more sense to me to have two battery sizes with a fixed maximum charge. Then offer a third, larger size (80?) with a software upgrade to 90 that is only available in the super-duper option package that might drive the final price to $60K or more.

We assume that the smallest battery will be 55kWh with a 215-mile range. This works out to 3.9 miles per kWh. If range scales mostly linearly with battery size, it would be so cool to have a 350-mile range Model III with a putative 90kWh.

Just spitballin' here.
�

Big-T said: ?

Not to get too far off topic, but it seems Tesla's is finally getting to some meaningful production. at lets say that they do manage to ramp up to 3-4k cars per week by mind 2017, is this going to affect the model 3 federal rebates in a negative way (meaning do you think they'll run out sooner than predicted?)
Click to expand...

When were full credits predicted to end? I think something like 70,000 have been delivered to date.
�

Big-T said: ?

Not to get too far off topic, but it seems Tesla's is finally getting to some meaningful production. at lets say that they do manage to ramp up to 3-4k cars per week by mind 2017, is this going to affect the model 3 federal rebates in a negative way (meaning do you think they'll run out sooner than predicted?)
Click to expand...

Hopefully, they ship those overseas and make sure early model 3's can be eligible
�

Perhaps it will like the Model S with 2 battery size:

85 kWh for the top trim, 55 for the base with optional upgrade to 70 or 75.
�

cpa said: ?

Oh, I don't know. Tesla is revisiting the Model S 60 about a year after they discontinued it in favor of the 70. This battery "unlocking" might be a test market for the Model 3 battery strategy.

Maybe Tesla is seeing just how many sales they get with the plain vanilla 60, how many upgrade to the 75 upon order, and how many upgrade after delivery. There will likely be enough sales of the 60/75 for Tesla to see how popular this sort of software-restricted battery is. This data could determine whether to offer this option for the Model III for all battery sizes or perhaps only for the largest size.

Tesla wants to move a lot of vehicles. They will need an enormous number of cells. It might make best use of capital to have the low-end battery(s) with a fixed size. Why have a bunch of inert cells installed in a car that is not going to use them, when those same cells could be used in another vehicle? And I am not clear if a "one-size fits all" battery is cheaper to manufacture and assemble in the long run.

It would make more sense to me to have two battery sizes with a fixed maximum charge. Then offer a third, larger size (80?) with a software upgrade to 90 that is only available in the super-duper option package that might drive the final price to $60K or more.

We assume that the smallest battery will be 55kWh with a 215-mile range. This works out to 3.9 miles per kWh. If range scales mostly linearly with battery size, it would be so cool to have a 350-mile range Model III with a putative 90kWh.

Just spitballin' here.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there will be three different batteries, but I could see two physical batteries, one is fixed, but one has a high-end software unlock. I'm just thinking about how to simplify manufacturing as much as possible.

Also don't forget Tesla eventually will take some of these locked battery cars back in trade, unlock the extra capacity, and re-sell them. So there's money to be had there as well. Slows depreciation.
�

cpa said: ?

We assume that the smallest battery will be 55kWh with a 215-mile range. This works out to 3.9 miles per kWh. If range scales mostly linearly with battery size, it would be so cool to have a 350-mile range Model III with a putative 90kWh.

Just spitballin' here.
Click to expand...

That'd be amazing, but I wonder at what point you'd run into packaging issues. Would a 90kWh battery even fit in the smaller Model 3?

Fiver said: ?

Also don't forget Tesla eventually will take some of these locked battery cars back in trade, unlock the extra capacity, and re-sell them. So there's money to be had there as well. Slows depreciation.
Click to expand...

That's a really great point. I'd almost guarantee that every S60 that comes back to them they'd unlock and resell as a S75 for more money.
�

All this talk about 2 or 3 different batteries make me think that my idea makes even more sense now. The base battery (55 or whatever KW) gets bolted up under the car, in the middle. No extra cells sitting idle in it, going to waste and adding more weight and reducing Tesla's profits. If someone wants to order a bigger battery capacity, either when the car is new or at a later date, shift the 55 battery rearward to its other mounting points, and bolt a smaller battery in front of it. The cooling and electrical connections will already be there, needing little or no modification. This can work, it is an alternative to this software locked concept, and there will only be 2 batteries total, the big one and the small one.

Hear me Tesla, give me discounts on my model 3 I have reserved...........
�

That is an expensive option: twice thr connectors, twice the controllers, installation time, more to go wrong. One upgradable battery is simpler, and the cost of the 'extra' batteries may not be that much.
�

timk225 said: ?

All this talk about 2 or 3 different batteries make me think that my idea makes even more sense now. The base battery (55 or whatever KW) gets bolted up under the car, in the middle. No extra cells sitting idle in it, going to waste and adding more weight and reducing Tesla's profits. If someone wants to order a bigger battery capacity, either when the car is new or at a later date, shift the 55 battery rearward to its other mounting points, and bolt a smaller battery in front of it. The cooling and electrical connections will already be there, needing little or no modification. This can work, it is an alternative to this software locked concept, and there will only be 2 batteries total, the big one and the small one.

Hear me Tesla, give me discounts on my model 3 I have reserved...........
Click to expand...

Also this requires lots of crash testing for safety since the weight distribution of the car will change. It's the opposite of "less complex".
�

3Victoria said: ?

That is an expensive option: twice thr connectors, twice the controllers, installation time, more to go wrong. One upgradable battery is simpler, and the cost of the 'extra' batteries may not be that much.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be. The controller will then be in the car, but yes, twice (or more) the connectors, and a bit more installation time. But look at the unveiling event. When Elon start to talk about the Model 3 you see the battery. 4 rows of two modules for a total of 8 modules. If the base battery is only the 4 in the middle then they can add two more modules to the front and two more modules to the rear to expand the battery. No shifting of the battery needed, just add 2 or 4 modules. My guess is that it is one connector in the car for each module, both for the cooling and the power, and each module could separately be replaced when needed. Or maybe two and two are linked together.

In the next generation of Model S/X I guess they will reuse this modules system, but it will get 10 or maybe 12 modules and each module will be about 12-15kWh - or more with later upgraded chemistry.

... OR: each module in the base battery of the Model 3 will be about 7kWh for a total of 56kWh (55), and the biggest battery will have 8 modules of 11kWh for a total of 88kWh (90). And then there is a middle battery option of 4*7+4*11=68kWh (70).
�

As someone who plans on buying the largest kWh battery, it would be great to think that the hardware costs could be spread across the platforms. It doesn't seem likely, however, unless there is a marketing belief that there will be a small percentage of 50/55 kWh buyers. 2 batteries, like an earlier poster hypothesized.

Teslas move to derating the S to a 60 kWh was to draw Model 3 reservationists in like me. Someone willing to spend $60K - $70K. However, I'm not ready. My '13 Touareg TDI is a fantastic machine. Not ready to give it up. Plus, I'm hoping for the magical "300 mile" option in a couple of years. 2019/2020 is still the plan.
�

Perhaps this is all going to boil down to what percentage of buyers configure their cars for the lowest range battery and what percentage chose the bigger (or biggest) battery. I would think that gamble would weigh heavily on the profit margins that Tesla sees over the course of the rollout.

Dan
�

For technical reasons, it's difficult to engineer a modular "add a pack" system as described. Because of this, I don't think Tesla will implement such a system.

I also don't think they will place a large capacity battery and then software limit it on the "cheaper" models. On a large margin S or X, yes, but not on the 3. In fact, I posit that the 60 option on the S is a temporary incentive to boost sales so they can keep ramping production at Fremont to prepare for 3.
�

not highly likely, especially if the weight of the software-locked pack makes the car too heavy to achieve "at least 215 miles EPA".

I'm thinking 2 batteries, physically. the smaller battery (60kWh), software-locked to 55 for the base model. and 70/75 for "max range" and performance models.
�

If a battery pack is software locked, I am guessing its charge and discharge voltage limits per cell are set to achieve that. But if the cells can't discharge fully, or charge fully, wouldn't that affect the ability to balance the pack during a 100% range charge?
�

Ingineer said: ?

For technical reasons, it's difficult to engineer a modular "add a pack" system as described. Because of this, I don't think Tesla will implement such a system.
Click to expand...

I know, I just pointed at some possibilities, but I do not expect that this is Teslas plan. Two different packs is probably the simplest and lowest cost alternative.

Ingineer said: ?

In fact, I posit that the 60 option on the S is a temporary incentive to boost sales so they can keep ramping production at Fremont to prepare for 3.
Click to expand...

Agree. I do expect it to be gone by the time Model 3 hits the streets...
�

One upgradable battery is simpler, and the cost of the 'extra' batteries may not be that much
Click to expand...

Say there are 55kWh and 70kWh battery options. That is 15kWh difference.
Say 55 is 'locked' 70.

At very low $100/kWh internal cost, they are lossing $1500 per every car sold if owner does not upgrade.
This car is meant to be sold en-masse, and lower priced versions will outsell the higher priced.

At 200.000 cars sold per year without 'unlock', that is $300 million LOSS. As a shareholder I find this unacceptable.
At 165M shares, this 'free battery' costs 2USD per share per year.

Abysmal performance from financial standpoint.

Tesla is doing locked 60 because today S70 is very rare animal, +90% customers opt for the bigger battery. They are counting on future customers still going for the bigger battery.
But with 60 on their price list they are attracting those people who before would not even think about tesla because it started at $75k.
Now it starts at 66k and they take a look and find the S90 to be a better car and they buy it or opt of 75kWh battery just because.

This situation will change with M3. There will be plenty of people stretching to buy the base model.
�

WarpedOne, if they expect 33% of buyers to opt for the large battery, i.e. upgrade, all they need to do is price the incremental capacity at 3x cost, i.e. $4500 using your numbers. This gives the same revenue as pricing all cells equally, but with the benefit of manufacturing efficiency and improves charge and discharge capability.
�

Model 3 said: ?

... OR: each module in the base battery of the Model 3 will be about 7kWh for a total of 56kWh (55), and the biggest battery will have 8 modules of 11kWh for a total of 88kWh (90). And then there is a middle battery option of 4*7+4*11=68kWh (70).
Click to expand...

A (more or less) 90kWh pack, mmm, I like your math
�

Guys, you're setting yourself up for disappointment with fantasies of 90kWh Model 3 packs.
You'll get a much better car with a 70kWh battery, with only slightly smaller, but still easily enough range, and $3000 more invested in build quality, nice materials, and equipment.
Model 3 simply doesn't need, can't fit, can't afford, and won't have a 90kWh battery pack.
�

Gerasimental said: ?

Guys, you're setting yourself up for disappointment with fantasies of 90kWh Model 3 packs.
Click to expand...

Probably, but I'll rather be optimist than pessimist and give Tesla indication on what I would want.

Gerasimental said: ?

You'll get a much better car with a 70kWh battery, with only slightly smaller, but still easily enough range, and $3000 more invested in build quality, nice materials, and equipment.
Model 3 simply doesn't need, can't fit, can't afford, and won't have a 90kWh battery pack.
Click to expand...

How presumptuous of you to tell people how much range they do or don't need or what is enough range.
�

Gerasimental said: ?

You'll get a much better car with a 70kWh battery, with only slightly smaller, but still easily enough range, and $3000 more invested in build quality, nice materials, and equipment.
Click to expand...

No one - as far as I have seen - have talked about 90kWh in the base - $35k - version. IF it will be an option you can bet it will cost And I'm sure that one day - maybe not the first few years - it will be an option even on the Model 3.

Gerasimental said: ?

Model 3 simply doesn't need, can't fit, can't afford, and won't have a 90kWh battery pack.
Click to expand...

What some customers of this car need and can afford is not up to you to decide. I'm sure there is some customers that cant have the bigger Model S but easy can afford an 90kWh option on the Model 3.Tesla will decide if it does see enough demand for this at a price they can deliver. I admit that it may be a though fit to squeeze all this capacity in today, but I guess that in 5-10 years it will be easy.

... and I will remind you that I did not predict or guess what it will be delivered with initially. I just pointed at some possible solutions for adding capacity later and exemplified it with some not-too-far-off-numbers.
�

I am not on board with the thought that the majority of Model 3 buyers will opt for the base smallest battery. I think the majority of people looking at this car will check the bigger battery option when ordering. It has proven overwhelmingly to be the case in previous models and I see no reason for that trend not to continue with the 3.

It is my opinion that range is still the number one concern of people considering an EV for the first time. Since such a large number of reservation holders are new to Tesla's and EVs in general, I think the bigger battery will be the first thing most people will want over the base price.

Just my thoughts of course. In reality, this is all speculation until the design studio opens up.

Dan
�

Dan Detweiler said: ?

I am not on board with the thought that the majority of Model 3 buyers will opt for the base smallest battery. I think the majority of people looking at this car will check the bigger battery option when ordering. It has proven overwhelmingly to be the case in previous models and I see no reason for that trend not to continue with the 3.

It is my opinion that range is still the number one concern of people considering an EV for the first time. Since such a large number of reservation holders are new to Tesla's and EVs in general, I think the bigger battery will be the first thing most people will want over the base price.

Just my thoughts of course. In reality, this is all speculation until the design studio opens up.

Dan
Click to expand...

There's an obvious reason for a change in trend: the car is much cheaper so the many buyers spending more than they'd really like to won't feel as ready to dump another $2,250 on a battery upgrade. For me, $2k could be the difference between me buying and not buying.
�

timk225 said: ?

If a battery pack is software locked, I am guessing its charge and discharge voltage limits per cell are set to achieve that. But if the cells can't discharge fully, or charge fully, wouldn't that affect the ability to balance the pack during a 100% range charge?
Click to expand...

No, I can think of a few ways it can be done through software.
�

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said: ?

There's an obvious reason for a change in trend: the car is much cheaper so the many buyers spending more than they'd really like to won't feel as ready to dump another $2,250 on a battery upgrade. For me, $2k could be the difference between me buying and not buying.
Click to expand...

I thought it's Not About The Money
�

Let's say that they manage to make 1 million cars by 2020 and that only 20% goes for the std 215 miles pack. That's still 200 000 packs. Twice the amount of the Model S/X combined.

It wouldn't really make sense to not make different packs with those numbers, unless the cost is far lower then 190$/kWh.
�

Laban said: ?

Let's say that they manage to make 1 million cars by 2020 and that only 20% goes for the std 215 miles pack. That's still 200 000 packs. Twice the amount of the Model S/X combined.

It wouldn't really make sense to not make different packs with those numbers, unless the cost is far lower then 190$/kWh.
Click to expand...

The cost is far lower than $190/kWh and by 2020 may be less than $100/kWh possibly sooner.

If the packs are not software upgradable and you purchase a 215 mile pack you will be stuck with it. The battery is fully paid for. Let's pretend Tesla profits $1000 in that case with a fixed price of $35k. ($1000 is a made up number)

Let's say in the price of the car at $35k the battery was software upgradable and was included in the base price of the car plus margins. The battery is totally paid for so Tesla doesn't lose money but Tesla doesn't get $1000 of potential profit. Let's say the charge for the upgrading during purchase is $3000 and the price to upgrade after purchase is $3500. In both cases they're making more money but having a software upgradable pack. Plus the manufacturing cost might be less so there's added savings there as well.
Yes, if a huge majority of people only bought the 215 mi version then Tesla might be out potential profits. Is that very likely? probably not, especially in the American market.

These are made up numbers but if they are making a healthy margin on the base model then this can be easily doable. Everything depends on the battery pack costs which are supposed to be the lowest and unmatched in the industry.
�

A few interesting ideas here. I am almost certain it will not be �one battery to rule them all�. I could see a possibility that they make basically one less physical version of the battery than they sell. The Model S is doing 3 options from 2 actual packs. The Model 3 might do that, or 4 versions from 3 packs. However, as @JeffK mentioned, any software limited battery is leaving some money on the table, and I don�t think they will want to do that with the Model 3 volume, and costs, and margins. They will be building in such volume that it may make sense to go ahead and build 3 real packs to sell at 3 levels, so they are getting fully paid for all of the battery cells. I would probably put my bets at 60% on this 1-to-1 scenario and 40% on the 1 less physical pack scenario.
�

They can swap out a battery pack in 1 minute 33 seconds. I think a swap would be the better way to go for upgrades. Yes, the unlocked is nice but remember some nice options will only be on the S/X

�

Trips said: ?

They can swap out a battery pack in 1 minute 33 seconds. I think a swap would be the better way to go for upgrades. Yes, the unlocked is nice but remember some nice options will only be on the S/X

Click to expand...

I wonder what the cost would be to ship extra batteries across the country.
�

Rocky_H said: ?

A few interesting ideas here. I am almost certain it will not be �one battery to rule them all�. I could see a possibility that they make basically one less physical version of the battery than they sell. The Model S is doing 3 options from 2 actual packs. The Model 3 might do that, or 4 versions from 3 packs. However, as @JeffK mentioned, any software limited battery is leaving some money on the table, and I don�t think they will want to do that with the Model 3 volume, and costs, and margins. They will be building in such volume that it may make sense to go ahead and build 3 real packs to sell at 3 levels, so they are getting fully paid for all of the battery cells. I would probably put my bets at 60% on this 1-to-1 scenario and 40% on the 1 less physical pack scenario.
Click to expand...

But think of it this way: If I buy a model 3 on the low end, with the software lock on the battery, and Tesla is able to break even on that sale from a battery margin standpoint... Ok. But as Tesla's are supposed to be very reliable, and last many years that new model 3 will someday be sold used at whatever the typical depreciation is for the 3. When I sell my car, Tesla gets nothing, but the new owner gets a deal on a used Tesla, and decides to use the savings they got vs buying new to upgrade the car's battery and suddenly Tesla not only makes the upgrade fee, but makes a little extra because it costs more after the fact vs at time of order when new.

So it's a little boost to revenue long after the car is sold. They could do this with several options on the car (autopilot, etc). The car doesn't have all the newest features of a current build, but still has a lot more value inherently built in because you can upgrade it over the phone.
�

JeffK said: ?

..
These are made up numbers but if they are making a healthy margin on the base model then this can be easily doable. Everything depends on the battery pack costs which are supposed to be the lowest and unmatched in the industry.
Click to expand...

I agree. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. But i wouldn't be that surprised if it turns out that a lot of people will realise that they actually don't need that much range. Especially in more densely populated areas with a dense Supercharger network.

And the Model S 60 to 75 kWh upgrade costs $11 000 here in Sweden, that's a lot of money for an upgrade which under normal circumstances will be 60 kWh to 67.5 kWh (100% vs 90% charge). I don't think that something similar will work for the Model 3 unless they cut the price in half, or more.
�

Laban said: ?

But i wouldn't be that surprised if it turns out that a lot of people will realise that they actually don't need that much range. Especially in more densely populated areas with a dense Supercharger network.
Click to expand...

The more I think about it, 215 miles will be plenty of range for 99% of my uses. Originally I was a "max out the battery range" person but now would be for the performance if at all.
�

I think the it will be the battery and more that will arrive with software locked options.
The manufacturing cost savings of reducing build permutations shouldn't be underestimated.
Could explain why SC access isn't free as well.
Think of the difference to the whole M3 experience if whole chunks of features are enabled by software instead go build process.
Then think off the marketing options of "try it free for 30 days" afterwards or used car purchases that can still upgraded later?
�

Twiglett said: ?

I think the it will be the battery and more that will arrive with software locked options.
The manufacturing cost savings of reducing build permutations shouldn't be underestimated.
Could explain why SC access isn't free as well.
Think of the difference to the whole M3 experience if whole chunks of features are enabled by software instead go build process.
Then think off the marketing options of "try it free for 30 days" afterwards or used car purchases that can still upgraded later?
Click to expand...

That'd be kind of a cool marketing thing for the holidays... Give extra capacity for Thanksgiving and take it away before Christmas travel. The following year with their tax return they might wish to upgrade.
�

No matter how you slice it or price it, putting an unlockable battery in Model 3's means LOST MONEY for Tesla.

If they price the upgrade so they make back the money, assuming that 1 in 3 buyers or whatever percentage of them gets the upgrade, they could have made MORE PROFIT, if 2 in 3 Model 3's weren't running around with dead weight expensive unused batteries!

And if they did price the unlockable upgrade so they'd break even on the cost of the extra batteries, assuming 1 in 3 buyers gets it, then that means those 1 in 3 buyers will pay THREE TIMES the cost of the extra cells to get theirs turned on.

A Model 3 owner should be able to drive into a service center and pay much less than (extra battery cell cost X 3) to upgrade to the larger pack.

I don't think I am wording this exactly right, but it makes sense in my head.

2 battery packs is the only logical answer. A small one and a big one.

The only way I can seeing this being a good sales idea to have an unlockable pack upgrade is if Tesla gave every new Model 3 owner something like a 90 day free trial, to be used when the owners wanted to use it. Someone could own their Model 3 for weeks or months, get used to it, then activate their 90 day free trial, then decide if they want to pay to keep it afterwards.

And even then, people should be able to order with an unlockable pack or a fixed size pack if they are sure they will never upgrade. Once again, no sense putting extra batteries in if they won't be used.
�

Fiver said: ?

The "new" 60, that's really a software locked 75 got me thinking. If Tesla has the margins to be able to offer a single battery with a software lock on the Model S and still turn a profit, It's probably going to be the same on the 3.
Click to expand...

Very likely. It will lower mfg. cost. We see this a lot with outboard motors where the same motor is sold over a range of horsepowers and priced by horsepower even though it is the same engine with different controller programming.
�

Trips said: ?

The more I think about it, 215 miles will be plenty of range for 99% of my uses. Originally I was a "max out the battery range" person but now would be for the performance if at all.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right but just be sure to factor in that most days you will charge to 90% and then in the winter you will likely lose 20-25% due to the cold, so effectively you're effective range in January is a lot closer to 150 miles than 215.
�

Fiver said: ?

The "new" 60, that's really a software locked 75 got me thinking. If Tesla has the margins to be able to offer a single battery with a software lock on the Model S and still turn a profit, It's probably going to be the same on the 3.
Click to expand...

Just because it works with the S does not mean it works with the 3. There's almost certainly going to be more orders placed for base batteries in the 3 than in the S and X. It's a different market and the SES of the consumers is going to be different/lower.

For proof of my point? Look at how supercharging is included in the price of the S and X but not the 3.

With all that said, I think I'm hoping Tesla does do the upgradeable base battery option (with an entirely different option for the performance/ludicrous models). I'd like to buy the base battery and then in 5+ years upgrade to the larger battery to mitigate battery loss. I don't "need" the larger battery at present and I probably can't afford the larger battery either. Not with the other options I want.
�

Trips said: ?

They can swap out a battery pack in 1 minute 33 seconds. I think a swap would be the better way to go for upgrades. Yes, the unlocked is nice but remember some nice options will only be on the S/X

Click to expand...

That was before the titanium shield upgrade that is now standard on all Tesla's. They can do it in under 4 minutes but can't do under 2 mins like they used to be able to do.

But even at 4 minutes its leaps and bounds faster than the most of a day effort on a Nissan Leaf.
�

If Tesla has to give away thousands of dollars in extra battery to save some bucks in manufacturing efficiency - they are screwed. They can't become a mass car producer.
�

I predict that your prediction won't happen, simply due to the fact that they need to compete with other EVs.
�

Fiver said: ?

The "new" 60, that's really a software locked 75 got me thinking. If Tesla has the margins to be able to offer a single battery with a software lock on the Model S and still turn a profit, It's probably going to be the same on the 3.
Click to expand...

Let's think about another country. It's also helping Tesla to help customer to buy it lower price. I once lived in South Korea, where government does NOT offer EV incentive(up to 20k USD equivalent) on 70+kWh cars. There could be another countries which have similar regulation.
(Don't ask me why, I neither know how this creepy regulation comes from)

It's tricky strategy to sell Tesla with EV incentive

60D - gov incentive + 75 kWh battery upgrade(*) = (approx) 60k USD
75D (gov incentive not eligible) = 80k USD

* I predict battery upgrade might be available when government regulation changes
�

EVNow said: ?

If Tesla has to give away thousands of dollars in extra battery to save some bucks in manufacturing efficiency - they are screwed. They can't become a mass car producer.
Click to expand...

I suspect the actual number of people getting the smallest battery will be very low.
Even then, if the initial purchaser only gets the small battery, the next owner could still pay Tesla to unlock the extra capacity.
Same applies to CPO. Tesla buy a 55KW and sell it as a 70KW making more money in the process.
�

Twiglett said: ?

I suspect the actual number of people getting the smallest battery will be very low.
Even then, if the initial purchaser only gets the small battery, the next owner could still pay Tesla to unlock the extra capacity.
Same applies to CPO. Tesla buy a 55KW and sell it as a 70KW making more money in the process.
Click to expand...

I believe the opposite. I believe that the number of people buying the smallest battery will be over 20%, perhaps as much as one-third.

[Ducking for cover!]

There are so many different lifestyles and budgets out there! Some people just do not need or want the range, yet want to drive electric. They may have free or reduced-fee charging at work. My feeling that there will be those who buy this car as their second car to drive around town on errands or to their job that is only a 25-mile round trip. The car might be a graduation present for a child or grandchild who is going to college in town or just a short distance away where there is charging on campus. Others could opt to spend their money on Supercharger access (let's say that the cost is $1,000-$1,500) rather than dropping many thousands more for a ~260-mile battery with Supercharging included.

What I believe makes better economics for Tesla at the outset of the Model III would be to have fixed battery sizes until they can develop a sense as to the demand for sizing. Moreover, they might be supply constrained from the Gigafactory the first year or two. They will be able to produce more vehicles more cheaply as there are no idle cells sitting in the battery packs for those who opted for the smallest size. It might be cheaper for Tesla to be able to swap out the small fixed battery for a larger pack upon trade in several years later too as cell prices drop.

Once the Gigafactory is cranking out plenty of product, and once Tesla has good sales data, then it just might make sense to offer battery unlocking upgrades.
�

cpa said: ?

I believe the opposite. I believe that the number of people buying the smallest battery will be over 20%, perhaps as much as one-third.
Click to expand...

There are going to be a LOT of people buying the smallest battery. This forum seems to think the demographics for the Model 3 are exactly the same as those for the S and X.
�

alseTrick said: ?

There are going to be a LOT of people buying the smallest battery. This forum seems to think the demographics for the Model 3 are exactly the same as those for the S and X.
Click to expand...

It's been said many time before, some folks seem to mistakenly think the target market is Accord or Camry.
Tesla have consistently used BMW & Audi for comparison, so are obviously aiming there.
Using the ICE analogy, while you can see a 320i on the roads, it isn't the most common.
The same is likely to happen with the Model ?, but it depends on the price delta.
�

Twiglett said: ?

It's been said many time before, some folks seem to mistakenly think the target market is Accord or Camry.
Tesla have consistently used BMW & Audi for comparison, so are obviously aiming there.
Click to expand...

That is correct. But please remember that it will be a lot of people that will stretch a bit more to get this car then the average BMW/Audi. I would never ever even think about buying a BMW or Audi - or any brand new car at all, but I do plan on buying this car (new), and that is not because it is in the "premium" marked segment. So yes, this is in the BMW/Audi marked segment, but it will be a lot of "Accord/Camry marked segment customer" getting it.

... but back on topic. I will not try to guess what will be the biggest seller here as it can go both ways.
�

Model 3 said: ?

I would never ever even think about buying a BMW or Audi - or any brand new car at all, but I do plan on buying this car (new), and that is not because it is in the "premium" marked segment. So yes, this is in the BMW/Audi marked segment, but it will be a lot of "Accord/Camry marked segment customer" getting it.
Click to expand...

But is your choice based on thrift or economic situation?

I think most T3 folks have already put out $1K for 1-2 years just to get in line so I suspect most T3 buyers are not that economically constrained.

The issue on upgrading the battery would be how someone uses the car. Range anxiety is a big issue even for dedicated EV'ers so the likely scenario based demographics of T3 buyers would be to upgrade that range. Musk did expect most to pay $7K for options. Battery "upgrade" on the P60 is $9,000. Maybe $7K on the T3 keeping things proportional. For the "thrifty" part of the Tesla demographic, that would be the option.
�

EaglesPDX said: ?

But is your choice based on thrift or economic situation?
Click to expand...

Witch choice?
The choice not to think about BMW/Audi? It's just that I don't like them
The choice not to buy a brand new car (other then TM3)? I don't see what the different that would make if it is the one or the other? You already know that I'm in an economic situation where I can plan for buying the TM3, and we all know that it is lower cost cars out there.

I just don't see any value in it for me to spend lot of money on the deprecation for the first few years of new cars when I can get a good car with a few years on it for much less. And quite frankly, I have a hard time finding any new cars that I really like/want. Except Tesla. And no, I'm not in a financial situation where I can get me an Model S (or Roadster). And I want to be a part of this move to electric propulsion as I see it as the only right ting to do. And there is not a lot of used low-priced long-range BEV's on the marked yet And I really need this range.
�

If a lot of Model 3's will be leased rather than sold, and if the upgraded range version of the car is like most other upgrades (large profit, minimal manufacturing cost), it would make sense to use software locked batteries (and other software locked features) since Tesla will be able to flip them as CPO's. What would have been a used base model car now becomes a used mid-trim or top-of-the-line car. Currently there are software locked batteries, ludicrous mode, autopilot, high amp charger, and supercharging. It would not be a big leap to software lock premium audio, navigation, Internet features, upgraded interior lighting, powerlift gate, heated and ventilated seats, upgraded headlights, and even all-wheel-drive and different performance levels. Its a game changing concept. Optimize manufacturing for high volume by building as few hardware variants as possible, software lock anything that can be locked, and defer some significant profits to get the base car out at the right price point. Cash in on those deferred profits when the leased cars predictably come back to Tesla after 3 years or when the owners decide they want to unlock a feature.
�

Model 3 said: ?

And no, I'm not in a financial situation where I can get me an Model S And I want to be a part of this move to electric propulsion as I see it as the only right ting to do. And there is not a lot of used low-priced long-range BEV's on the marked yet . And I really need this range.
Click to expand...

So people such as yourself with financial situation to buy a T3 and for whom range is an issue (my situation as well) will very likely buy the upgrade to the unlocked battery.

The new Tesla 60D with a 216 range is nearly identical in range to the Tesla 3. A $60,000 car where the battery upgrade is 15%. If that projects out to the T3, at $35,000, the extended range of 250 miles would cost about $6,000 which gets us to Musks majority of buyers in the $42K range with options. So to the question on battery, I think majority will upgrade and Musk seems to think majority will upgrade also.

I ski so AWD ($3,500) air lift ($1,500) and subzero ($500) are needed. I trailer a boat so plus tow option, currently not available on the S ($500). These are all proportional to car cost based on S and X models. I'm expecting $47K for my T3. A bit high for me but I'm figuring I can keep it for 10-15 years. Can't imagine what else I'd need from a car.
�

I would not pay $6000 to go from 215 miles to 250. There is no way that is a good deal! A $4000 battery upgrade better get me 300!
�

Twiglett said: ?

It's been said many time before, some folks seem to mistakenly think the target market is Accord or Camry.
Tesla have consistently used BMW & Audi for comparison, so are obviously aiming there.
Using the ICE analogy, while you can see a 320i on the roads, it isn't the most common.
The same is likely to happen with the Model ?, but it depends on the price delta.
Click to expand...

Doesn't appear you've actually refuted anything I said.
�

A quick look at model3tracker.info reveals that 35.2% opts for the std battery. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be more then that, at least if they make it a $9000 - 15 kWh option.

And yes, i know that model3tracker.info probably is heavily US biased, for obvious reasons. But i'm guessing that this skews the numbers towards the larger pack rather than the opposite.
�

Laban said: ?

And yes, i know that model3tracker.info probably is heavily US biased, for obvious reasons. But i'm guessing that this skews the numbers towards the larger pack rather than the opposite.
Click to expand...

I'd actually think that it skews towards smaller packs because, as far as I know, the US has the best situation regarding Superchargers?
�

EaglesPDX said: ?

So people such as yourself with financial situation to buy a T3 and for whom range is an issue (my situation as well) will very likely buy the upgrade to the unlocked battery.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that... Well, I can only talk about myself and my situation: But what I need is about 200 miles EPA range. And the promised 215/216 miles is enough. Yes, even the "old" TMS60 with 208 is enough. My problem here, that may get me to upgrade to a bigger battery is not the range, but the buffers. With 200 miles EPA range and winter and a few years of degeneration may make the buffers so small as I may have to charge to 100% - or approach 0% - more often then I like, with will lead to even more degeneration of the battery. But a bigger battery with software limit like in the new TMS60? Assuming the buffers is on the top, that is just exactly what I need: Extra (free!) buffers to avoid the degeneration on the battery, so I can charge to "100%" as often as I wish. No need to unlock them

So yes, I do want software locked batteries, but I do not think that this make any economic sense to Tesla on the TM3/Gen-III platform.

EaglesPDX said: ?

So to the question on battery, I think majority will upgrade and Musk seems to think majority will upgrade also.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that Musk expect that. They need to get more people into Model S, and the raised prices lately does not help. So they needed a quick way to reduce the price of the entry model, and (I guess) the price of battery cells has been reduced so it could make sense. And some will absolutely upgrade. And I guess that this anyway will be a short-lived model, not anything that shows where Tesla is going in the future.
�

jkk_ said: ?

I'd actually think that it skews towards smaller packs because, as far as I know, the US has the best situation regarding Superchargers?
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that, take Germany/Central Europe f.e:

Not sure about the road trip habits - US vs Europe goes, but i would guess that it's more common in the US.
�

Initially I was a bit skeptical about software locking batteries but the more I think now, it all makes perfect sense.

As @Model 3 points out, part of the appeal is the increase in buffer capacity at the top which will make the battery more reliable long-term. Then there is the advantage of unlocking this extra range at a later date (perhaps at the end of warranty) to recover some of the lost range. Then of course we have the option to upgrade range at a later date which makes good financial sense to Tesla.

I also now think M3 will feature one battery for base and the next higher range option. Perhaps the highest range option might require a different battery but without proper facts and figures, it will be difficult to predict. One thing is for sure - battery manufacturing costs declining will make it more likely to see Tesla going towards a "one battery for all" scheme.

Perhaps this is where MS and M3 will start to divert in that Tesla might keep MS as their Peak Performance Luxury car with a very high range while M3 will be their cheaper medium performance, medium range option in which case they might only have two range options using one common battery and software range locking.

I guess some of this can also change in the future due to competition but without at least a second generation EV alternative with 200+ mile range, it is difficult to predict how things will go.
�

Jayc said: ?

Then there is the advantage of unlocking this extra range at a later date (perhaps at the end of warranty) to recover some of the lost range.
Click to expand...

But - still assuming the buffer will be at the top - will not (more or less) all the degradation of the battery be within the locked region? Until it is all "used" by the degradation of course.

... so, as I see it, the older/more mileage the car is/has, the less is the value of unlocking the battery.
�

Laban said: ?

Not so sure about that, take Germany/Central Europe f.e:

View attachment 181746

Not sure about the road trip habits - US vs Europe goes, but i would guess that it's more common in the US.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I was thinking about Finland, which is quite sad compared to some other countries - even though it has been improving. But I'd personally want couple of spots to be added still.

Jayc said: ?

Perhaps this is where MS and M3 will start to divert in that Tesla might keep MS as their Peak Performance Luxury car with a very high range while M3 will be their cheaper medium performance, medium range option in which case they might only have two range options using one common battery and software range locking.

I guess some of this can change in the future due to competition but without a second generation EV alternative with 200+ mile range, it is difficult to predict how things will go.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope you are wrong. If it's only medium range it's highly likely that it won't be enough in many cases. Which will mean that the era of ICE cars will continue longer than I want.
�

jkk_ said: ?

Fair enough, I was thinking about Finland, which is quite sad compared to some other countries - even though it has been improving. But I'd personally want couple of spots to be added still.
Click to expand...

I live in the northern part of Sweden and we have no superchargers here atm, there will be some at the end of this year though. But you also have to take into account the number of cars sold here compared to f.e the US, southern Europe, China.
�

Laban said: ?

I live in the northern part of Sweden and we have no superchargers here atm, there will be some at the end of this year though. But you also have to take into account the number of cars sold here compared to f.e the US, southern Europe, China.
Click to expand...

Partially chicken and egg problem, which will be first. Luckily there are some forerunners that have given Tesla a reason to grow the SpC network
�

Personally, I wouldn't assume features will be priced proportionally with the base price of the car. Although Elon did mention the cost of AWD being lower, he hasn't alluded to lower pricing for options across the board. If you've got the money to afford these either way, continue with your wishful thinking, but i wouldn't get my hopes up otherwise.

EaglesPDX said: ?

I ski so AWD ($3,500) air lift ($1,500) and subzero ($500) are needed. I trailer a boat so plus tow option, currently not available on the S ($500). These are all proportional to car cost based on S and X models. I'm expecting $47K for my T3. A bit high for me but I'm figuring I can keep it for 10-15 years. Can't imagine what else I'd need from a car.
Click to expand...

�

timk225 said: ?

A $4000 battery upgrade better get me 300!
Click to expand...

I've pondered the battery question from day one. I'm retired, and my wife and I have traditionally vacationed mostly outside the States, so we will rarely use the M3 for extended travel. A range of a little over 200 miles would be adequate. I may or may not pay for the option of 15 kWh but not $6-$9K. That $9K will fuel the Lexus for over 90,000 miles for longer trips averaging 28 mpg or 150 nights with Mr. Tom Bodett at the Motel 6 along the way.

Anything over $5K to take my range up to 300 miles I'm out and will be happy with whatever comes with the car.
�

jkk_ said: ?

I'd actually think that it skews towards smaller packs because, as far as I know, the US has the best situation regarding Superchargers?
Click to expand...

regardless of location, I think the tracker contains info from more of the Tesla enthusiasts than the reservers as a whole, making the options selected more likely to be the higher priced options.
�

Model 3 said: ?

But - still assuming the buffer will be at the top - will not (more or less) all the degradation of the battery be within the locked region? Until it is all "used" by the degradation of course.

... so, as I see it, the older/more mileage the car is/has, the less is the value of unlocking the battery.
Click to expand...

I agree there will be less value in customer paid unlocking of the battery in high mileage cars.

However, Tesla can chose to give a new life to high mileage cars by unlocking capacity and bringing its range back up to what it would have been originally i.e. original locked range.

jkk_ said: ?

I certainly hope you are wrong. If it's only medium range it's highly likely that it won't be enough in many cases. Which will mean that the era of ICE cars will continue longer than I want.
Click to expand...

I am just speculating and I too hope M3 will have a high range battery. To me, the only thing that does not add up in all this is MS placement beyond full M3 availability i.e. will the extra hatch, extra child seats and extra dimensions justify price differential with M3? Its a puzzle right now and I think the answer is also there but we have to look at it from a MS perspective and that might also give us a better understanding of what they will offer for M3.
�

Jayc said: ?

I am just speculating and I too hope M3 will have a high range battery. To me, the only thing that does not add up in all this is MS placement beyond full M3 availability i.e. will the extra hatch, extra child seats and extra dimensions justify price differential with M3? Its a puzzle right now and I think the answer is also there but we have to look at it from a MS perspective and that might also give us a better understanding of what they will offer for M3.
Click to expand...

It was revealed during the shareholder meeting. The S and X will have all the latest bells and whistles, the model 3 will get those new features only after they have been iterated and improved with the S and X and the cost of those things has come down. Which is all and good and what every other manufacturer does.

The thing is, I think that in order for BEVs to break through, the range cannot be reserved for top end models. Take Mercedes for example, the E class gets the newest toys before C class but both have about same range. Of course, the difference is that gas tank doesn't cost that much as compared to batteries but still.
�

jkk_ said: ?

The S and X will have all the latest bells and whistles, the model 3 will get those new features only after they have been iterated and improved with the S and X and the cost of those things has come down.
Click to expand...

This is probably a span of only a few months until there's a way to mass produce the feature inexpensively. I would imagine the S and X will get a feature after Model 3 reveal part 2 and those same features will show up as options in the Model 3 at launch.
�

Jayc said: ?

I agree there will be less value in customer paid unlocking of the battery in high mileage cars.

However, Tesla can chose to give a new life to high mileage cars by unlocking capacity and bringing its range back up to what it would have been originally i.e. original locked range.
Click to expand...

I think I have done a poor job in explaining what I meant as it seams like you have not understood what I was trying to say.

Lets take an example:
TM3 gets an 70kWh battery with an EPA range of 255 miles. The base model gets software limited to 55kWh/215 EPA miles.
After lets say 8 years and 160k miles the battery has lot ~15% range (38 miles) and now has 217 EPA miles range left.
The software limited battery will still give the 215 EPA miles as it always have had, and an unlock will now only give it 2 additional EPA miles of range.
When the software limited battery has lost 20% range (51 miles) and is left with 204 EPA miles, there is nothing to gain by unlocking it at all.

So when an owner of this software limited battery finally does sees some degradation Tesla can't "bring it back", all the buffer on the top will by then be depleted. This is at least what I think/guess, based on the assumption that the buffer/limit will be at the top.
�

cpa said: ?

I believe the opposite. I believe that the number of people buying the smallest battery will be over 20%, perhaps as much as one-third.

[Ducking for cover!]
Click to expand...

No, no, excellent post. It's so well-expressed that I am going to use the points to shine light on facets of the "Hardware Sizes Only Plz" thesis. And I'm giving you a HELPFUL so don't throw things TOO hard at me either...

cpa said: ?

There are so many different lifestyles and budgets out there! Some people just do not need or want the range, yet want to drive electric. They may have free or reduced-fee charging at work. My feeling that there will be those who buy this car as their second car to drive around town on errands or to their job that is only a 25-mile round trip.
Click to expand...

Yes, different strokes. But really, aren't over 20% of people going to have EITHER a job change OR a home move OR both within the ~8 year time you'd keep a battery? "Oops, looks like I won't be able to charge at the new job. Wish I'd bought a longer range battery. Wish there were a magic wand to wave to get more range from the same pack! That'd be of so much VALUE to me..."

cpa said: ?

The car might be a graduation present for a child or grandchild who is going to college in town or just a short distance away where there is charging on campus.
Click to expand...

And again, most college careers aren't going to outlive the battery's "career," either, and options that don't require recycling and a service visit (probably costing the same as a theoretical SW range-upgrade too!) would be a thing of value to both parties.

cpa said: ?

Others could opt to spend their money on Supercharger access (let's say that the cost is $1,000-$1,500) rather than dropping many thousands more for a ~260-mile battery with Supercharging included.
Click to expand...

Others could opt to spend their money on Supercharger access at purchase, and spend for unlocking later when it makes more sense. Potato, to-mah-to.

cpa said: ?

What I believe makes better economics for Tesla at the outset of the Model III would be to have fixed battery sizes until they can develop a sense as to the demand for sizing. Moreover, they might be supply constrained from the Gigafactory the first year or two.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But, they might not be!

cpa said: ?

They will be able to produce more vehicles more cheaply as there are no idle cells sitting in the battery packs for those who opted for the smallest size.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be idle cells anyway. The limit in the software would be like the limits on a "classic" pack, which already keeps the "true 100%" and "true 0%" states of charge out of reach of children, uh, I mean, us.

cpa said: ?

It might be cheaper for Tesla to be able to swap out the small fixed battery for a larger pack upon trade in several years later too as cell prices drop.
Click to expand...

We might be gazing into different brands of crystal balls, I agree cell-prices will keep going down but OTOH the savings in cost of labor to do a physical swap (and deal with evaluating the trade-in), the time and effort for the owner to get the car in for service, separate manufacturing configs, etc. make me think the flip-a-software-switch scenario is of a very high value to the company.
�

Agree or maybe two hardware versions with software upgrades. Simplified production, spread costs over all cars to recoup expense, higher resale for Tesla without need to replace battery pack. It makes sense assuming he can make the battery packs cheep enough.
�

Fiver said: ?

The "new" 60, that's really a software locked 75 got me thinking. If Tesla has the margins to be able to offer a single battery with a software lock on the Model S and still turn a profit, It's probably going to be the same on the 3.

One battery, software locked at the low end, full realized (no lock) on the high end.

Simplifies manufacturing not just from the battery side, but also the power output required for "P" models and faster supercharging speeds would all be included in every car. Less different hardware, less inventory of parts, simple repairs.
Probably software unlock for the high end charger like we have currently on S & X.
The model 3 might be heavy on the options that are software unlockable.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Good points. I would guess that... The base car will have a 55 kWh available capacity, but that will be software limited from either 70 kWH or 75 kWh. I still hope that a higher capacity battery pack, with a full 90 kWH or 100 kWh is offered as well. So, for the sake of marketing, three capacities, and for the ease of manufacturing, only two. Naturally, I'd expect the 70 kWH and higher capacities to include the 'FREE for LIFE!' access to Superchargers.

I am sure that there are some who would knock my maximum numbers down by 10 kWh or 15 kWh or so. They apparently expect the car to miraculously average something below 150 Wh per mile of energy consumption, just by having a Tesla badge on it.

Some have actively proclaimed they don't want Supercharger access for Model ? at all. Not limited, not pay-per-use, not unlimited.

We'll see.
�

timk225 said: ?

I would not pay $6000 to go from 215 miles to 250. There is no way that is a good deal! A $4000 battery upgrade better get me 300!
Click to expand...

.

How about $4,500 for 40 miles? That would be the proportional price for battery upgrade on the T3 vs Model 60S. $66,000/$8500/40 miles on the TS60, $35,000/$4,500 on the T3.

Tesla charges an extra $500 to upgrade the battery after delivery, $8,500 vs. $9,000 on the TS60D. For working people likely financing the T3 that would be $5,000 that would not be included in the original car finance so a bit incentive to upgrade the battery when buying.
�

EaglesPDX said: ?

. For working people likely financing the T3 that would be $5,000 that would not be included in the original car finance so a bit incentive to upgrade the battery when buying.
Click to expand...

or look at it another way... states that offer sales tax exemptions for battery upgrades would have it make sense to upgrade after the purchase vs at the time of purchase (assuming the $8000/$8,500 upgrade costs on the MS).
WA's EV car sales tax exemptions only gives you the break on the first $32,000 of the purchase price, but batteries and infrastructure purchased separately are tax exempt. So instead of paying sales tax on the $8000 ($688 based on local tax rate) at the time of purchasing/financing the car, add it on later for $8500 without tax and save $188.
�

melindav said: ?

WA's EV car sales tax exemptions only gives you the break on the first $32,000 of the purchase price, but batteries and infrastructure purchased separately are tax exempt. So instead of paying sales tax on the $8000 ($688 based on local tax rate) at the time of purchasing/financing the car, add it on later for $8500 without tax and save $188.
Click to expand...

Assuming the working man's Tesla, you have to come up with $5000 (cost to upgrade battery after purchase) to save the $150 in sales tax vs. rolling it into the finance of the car initially. I think for most folks, those financing the car as they always do, rolling it into the financing would be what they could afford.
�

Considering how much battery development and cost reduction has happened in the past 8 years, I think that in another 8 years, few people will be worrying about trying to get as much as they can out of an 8 year old 100,000 mile pack.
�

SW2Fiddler said: ?

No, no, excellent post. It's so well-expressed that I am going to use the points to shine light on facets of the "Hardware Sizes Only Plz" thesis. And I'm giving you a HELPFUL so don't throw things TOO hard at me either...

Yes, different strokes. But really, aren't over 20% of people going to have EITHER a job change OR a home move OR both within the ~8 year time you'd keep a battery? "Oops, looks like I won't be able to charge at the new job. Wish I'd bought a longer range battery. Wish there were a magic wand to wave to get more range from the same pack! That'd be of so much VALUE to me..."

And again, most college careers aren't going to outlive the battery's "career," either, and options that don't require recycling and a service visit (probably costing the same as a theoretical SW range-upgrade too!) would be a thing of value to both parties.

Others could opt to spend their money on Supercharger access at purchase, and spend for unlocking later when it makes more sense. Potato, to-mah-to.

Fair enough. But, they might not be!

There wouldn't be idle cells anyway. The limit in the software would be like the limits on a "classic" pack, which already keeps the "true 100%" and "true 0%" states of charge out of reach of children, uh, I mean, us.

We might be gazing into different brands of crystal balls, I agree cell-prices will keep going down but OTOH the savings in cost of labor to do a physical swap (and deal with evaluating the trade-in), the time and effort for the owner to get the car in for service, separate manufacturing configs, etc. make me think the flip-a-software-switch scenario is of a very high value to the company.
Click to expand...

Fiddler, . I think what I was driving at was that there is a large part of the country where people live in moderately large, but isolated cities like Fresno, Reno, Spokane, Twin Cities where they may change jobs occasionally, but are not suddenly driving 90 miles per day round trip. There are lots of people who are school teachers or other government employees who do not change jobs during their careers. (By the way, I have at least a dozen clients who fit either of these situations.) They might move to a nicer house, but their commute does not change that much. Fleet sales would also fall into this category where the daily driving range is never more than 100 miles or so.

I am very unclear about the battery cell argument. I am also very ignorant about the cells. Are you saying that a battery cell that was manufactured in 2013, but never used (stored in its original box) still has 100% charging capacity, and has not degraded at all? Are you saying that a 70kWh battery but limited to 55kWh has 13-14kWh as the "true 100% charge?" Or are all the cells used, but each cell is limited to, say 80% total charge, and not 100%? My thinking is that a battery pack that has a 70kWh potential, but is limited to 55 will not have 70kWh available 4-5 years down the road because of degradation of the inactive (or idle) cells that provide no use other than to prevent battery failure. I would think that there would be a lot of unhappy customers who pull the trigger 4-5 years later to pay the inflated upgrade price only to receive a 94% max charge.

Cheers!
�

Around 7.06 2 motors.

�

Tesla must love watching people dissect these videos and try to micro-analyze everything and deduce what the factory is planning. I'm not giving it a lot of thought, I will just wait a year and see what it is.
�

Looks like Tesla got rid of the one battery Model S60/75 and they are two separate options.

Maybe this was just a trial for the future Model 3 and it was a no go.
�

JeffK said: ?

Looks like Tesla got rid of the one battery Model S60/75 and they are two separate options.

Maybe this was just a trial for the future Model 3 and it was a no go.
Click to expand...

Could it be possible that they're still the same hardware, and the 60 comes with a "Surprise! You have 75 kwh available, but you'll have to upgrade for $X" type of message after a while?
�

Booga said: ?

Could it be possible that they're still the same hardware, and the 60 comes with a "Surprise! You have 75 kwh available, but you'll have to upgrade for $X" type of message after a while?
Click to expand...

haha maybe
�

They probably changed it so folks know the 75 is still available. Would be interested in knowing if the upgrade for those that got the 60 is still available.
�

I'm thinking that one battery for all is very economical. Makes sense.
�

JeffK said: ?

Looks like Tesla got rid of the one battery Model S60/75 and they are two separate options.

Maybe this was just a trial for the future Model 3 and it was a no go.
Click to expand...

the opposite I think.
The site current shows both the 60 & 75, but the 60 has "upgradable to 75" - and the Model X is now the same.
That seems to indicate that there is really good chance of the base Model 3 having a software limited larger battery.
The biggest change is that they sell both versions as "models".
�

JeffK said: ?

Looks like Tesla got rid of the one battery Model S60/75 and they are two separate options.

Maybe this was just a trial for the future Model 3 and it was a no go.
Click to expand...

Its the same battery Jeff. Same hardware. That's why you can remotely upgrade from a 60 to a 75.
�

Garlan Garner said: ?

Its the same battery Jeff. Same hardware. That's why you can remotely upgrade from a 60 to a 75.
Click to expand...

Twiglett said: ?

the opposite I think.
The site current shows both the 60 & 75, but the 60 has "upgradable to 75" - and the Model X is now the same.
That seems to indicate that there is really good chance of the base Model 3 having a software limited larger battery.
The biggest change is that they sell both versions as "models".
Click to expand...

It was a false alarm. The software upgrade part was temporarily removed late last month
see S60 can no longer be upgraded to 75 in software? | Tesla Motors (and I witnessed it removed myself)

Perhaps a dev screwed up for a few days. It's back on there now as software upgradable.
�

JeffK said: ?

It was a false alarm. The software upgrade part was temporarily removed late last month
see S60 can no longer be upgraded to 75 in software? | Tesla Motors (and I witnessed it removed myself)

Perhaps a dev screwed up for a few days. It's back on there now as software upgradable.
Click to expand...

Well...there ya go. One battery
�

Garlan Garner said: ?

Well...there ya go. One battery
Click to expand...

If they can do it for the model 3 at a low cost then I really think it'll be the way to go. It'll allow better longevity and as a side effect, cells can distribute heat better than the blanks the Model S was using for the smaller packs.
�

JeffK said: ?

If they can do it for the model 3 at a low cost then I really think it'll be the way to go. It'll allow better longevity and as a side effect, cells can distribute heat better than the blanks the Model S was using for the smaller packs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It will definitely be the way to go.
�

This is actually brilliant. people who choose base battery get to charge to 100% without penalty. Those who upgrade get a higher max charge and free supercharger to help ease the sting of a $7500-8500 upgrade.

The battery upgrade prices seem so extreme as/is. If you offer free supercharging to those who with the larger battery, won't need it as often, its a win for tesla and a nice perk for its users.

Red Sage said: ?

Naturally, I'd expect the 70 kWH and higher capacities to include the 'FREE for LIFE!' access to Superchargers.We'll see.
Click to expand...

�

There are still TWO batteries for the Model S and X: A 75kWh and a 90kWh.

The 3 likely won't diverge too far from what the S and X are doing.
�

Realistically, what would be the largest size battery (using today's Model S batteries - sorta 'AA' size) that would fit in the current Model 3 as it is designed?
�

smartypnz said: ?

Realistically, what would be the largest size battery (using today's Model S batteries - sorta 'AA' size) that would fit in the current Model 3 as it is designed?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure any of them would fit. No matter whether it's the 75kWh or the 90kWh, the battery still looks like this:

The only difference is that apparently there are "fake" "AA" batteries in the 75kWh pack (or whatever that contraption is called) in place of real batteries in the 90kWh.

So since a Model 3 won't fit on that, I think the only answer to your question is none.
�

@Model 3 has the right idea. I read the entire thread to see if someone brought up the 90% charge for longevity.

Keep in mind that GM only allows 50% of their battery to be used in the VOLT. The state of charge is between 30% to 80% and that keeps their battery giving the same range throughout its lifetime of 8 years.

The new 60 kW Model X has a larger battery, and I wouldn't doubt if it is for that reason. IMHO, if an owner pays extra to charge to 100%, that is insurance for Tesla to replace the battery sooner if it fails before the 8 years is up. If the owner never updates, then the battery lasts longer.
�

alseTrick said: ?

I'm not sure any of them would fit. No matter whether it's the 75kWh or the 90kWh, the battery still looks like this:

The only difference is that apparently there are "fake" "AA" batteries in the 75kWh pack (or whatever that contraption is called) in place of real batteries in the 90kWh.

So since a Model 3 won't fit on that, I think the only answer to your question is none.
Click to expand...

Since the Model 3 will use the a new larger battery format with greater energy density we can't really can't answer smartypnz's question.
�

The 3's wheelbase is smaller than the S's, regardless of battery size/count.
�

If Tesla wanted to make their batteries last for as long as possible, what they should do is only use a part of its capacity leaving margins at both ends so when the indicator shows a full charge, it will only be charged 90% of its total capacity. Likewise when it shows 10% charge remaining, it would actually hold 20% of charge. This will be what GM does with their volt but it will be more relevant to Tesla being a pure EV. But of course then they cannot claim full capacity range but better to have less battery degradation than not, if I had a choice.

BTW I predict that eventually all Teslas will share the same battery architecture and macro construction. Just doesn't make sense to have different types for different models - doesn't scale well IMO.
�

Jayc said: ?

If Tesla wanted to make their batteries last for as long as possible, what they should do is only use a part of its capacity leaving margins at both ends so when the indicator shows a full charge, it will only be charged 90% of its total capacity. Likewise when it shows 10% charge remaining, it would actually hold 20% of charge.
Click to expand...

How do we know this isn't already the case?
�

smartypnz said: ?

How do we know this isn't already the case?
Click to expand...

It is already the case, to some degree. Go look through the Model S forums for some detailed threads discussing actual battery capacity (hint: a 90kWh battery isn't actually 90kWh), and how much capacity is held in reserve.

Though at the top end, Tesla does allow you to get to 100% charge when you really need it; most people charge to 90% on a daily basis. Many getting a 60kWh that is really a 75kWh software locked are taking advantage of this to do a "100%" (of software available) charge daily.
�

Jayc said: ?

BTW I predict that eventually all Teslas will share the same battery architecture and macro construction. Just doesn't make sense to have different types for different models - doesn't scale well IMO.
Click to expand...

Are the BMW 3Series and 5Series based on the same chassis?
Is the Corolla based on the same platform as the Avallon?

The answer is NO, so what do you want the Tesla 3/Y to eventually use the same platform as the Tesla S/X?
Not using the same platform means not having the same battery architecture (not the same space available), so the only common thing between all the Tesla cars may be the same battery sizes... but may be even not the same manufacturer.
�

Pescakl1 said: ?

Are the BMW 3Series and 5Series based on the same chassis?
Is the Corolla based on the same platform as the Avallon?

The answer is NO, so what do you want the Tesla 3/Y to eventually use the same platform as the Tesla S/X?
Not using the same platform means not having the same battery architecture (not the same space available), so the only common thing between all the Tesla cars may be the same battery sizes... but may be even not the same manufacturer.
Click to expand...

This is Tesla not Toyota or BMW. Tesla don't follow other platform architectures if they did they will be long gone by now. Toyota and BMW do not have mega factories where every single engine for the whole world is produced but Tesla has the giga factory where its very existence and profitability will depend on massive economies of scale, high re-use of parts and and top end efficiency in production.

As to the question why do I want M3 to use MX or S/X platform - I really don't seriously. I would not want bulky and heavy components from X or S to end up in 3 which I am hoping would be the most efficient of the bunch. However, battery re-use makes sense and lots of re-use in that. Giga factory could be churning out millions and millions of identical batteries with no link to which configuration or car it ends up in. I think if Tesla can find a way to minimise the cost of battery fuse upgrade required for PXXD, one battery for all is doable.

In fact I'd go so far as to say when the gigafactory starts to operate at its peak, Tesla may even make their battery available to other manufacturers. When you think of the gigafactory, think of huge steel factories with mega furnaces. Yes the gigafactory will be much more efficient from start to end and Tesla will ensure minimal static running costs but at the end, first principles still hold i.e. they will have to keep the factory operating at peak rate for that business model to make sense.
�

Jayc said: ?

BTW I predict that eventually all Teslas will share the same battery architecture and macro construction. Just doesn't make sense to have different types for different models - doesn't scale well IMO.
Click to expand...

That would be ideal, no doubt.
�

Pescakl1 said: ?

Are the BMW 3Series and 5Series based on the same chassis?
Is the Corolla based on the same platform as the [Avalon]?
Click to expand...

Depending upon which versions, yes. The BMW 3-Series, 5-Series, and 7-Series were all essentially the same car, with different wheelbase lengths, for like, ever. Their individual product development may have divulged somewhat over the years, but there's a reason why they all used the same motors for a very long time.

The Toyota Avalon is the latest version of what used to be called the Cressida, and before that, the Corona. Those are basically stretched wheelbase versions of the Camry. Which was a larger version of the Corolla. Much the same progression exists for Honda Accord and Civic.

A lot of traditional automobile manufacturers have made the best use of engineering scale, in a literal sense, over the years. Design it once, scale it up or down for purpose. Use it again, over, and over, and over again. Easy.
�

Red Sage said: ?

Depending upon which versions, yes. The BMW 3-Series, 5-Series, and 7-Series were all essentially the same car, with different wheelbase lengths, for like, ever. Their individual product development may have divulged somewhat over the years, but there's a reason why they all used the same motors for a very long time.

The Toyota Avalon is the latest version of what used to be called the Cressida, and before that, the Corona. Those are basically stretched wheelbase versions of the Camry. Which was a larger version of the Corolla. Much the same progression exists for Honda Accord and Civic.

A lot of traditional automobile manufacturers have made the best use of engineering scale, in a literal sense, over the years. Design it once, scale it up or down for purpose. Use it again, over, and over, and over again. Easy.
Click to expand...

Red, in your final sentence from the first paragraph, don't you mean diverged? I cannot think how an inanimate object can divulge something.
�

cpa said: ?

Red, in your final sentence from the first paragraph, don't you mean diverged? I cannot think how an inanimate object can divulge something.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Prolly so. That works. Go with it!
�

My 2 cents:

If Ludicrous mode is an option for M3s, I think it's very doubtful there will be just one battery.

Close to nil.
�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Bảy, 14 tháng 1, 2017

Prediction: One battery for Model 3 part 1

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét