Jul 18, 2014
wallet.dat Ok, so it's been established that the Model III's target is the BMW 3 series. But that begs the interesting scenario of the extreme upper end of each respective model: The P+ and "M" variants of each line. If the P+ is to match or exceed the performance of the M3/M4 (which can hit an 11 second 1/4 mile), it will have to exceed the performance of the Model S as well. Is this even a plausible scenario? If this does proves to be the case, where can I camp out in line to be the first one to buy one???�
Jul 19, 2014
Tasdevil I'd like to see the 3 beat an M3 around a track.
Now that's an engineering challenge, straight line battle is meh�
Jul 19, 2014
Johan They should really make a track performance Model 3 P++. It would have extra cooling, less comfort, lighter materials, performance suspension and 2-motor AWD. It would beat an M3 around a track, but cost $150k (???)�
Jul 19, 2014
Raffy.Roma So you think that Model 3 P++ will be made of aluminium?�
Jul 19, 2014
Johan No, the regular one. For the ++ I was thinking a lot of carbon fibre.�
Jul 19, 2014
Raffy.Roma Cool!
�
Jul 19, 2014
ecarfan Let the aftermarket provide the accessories to make the Model 3 "track ready". As a TSLA shareholder I don't want the company to devote any resources to that project. Tesla is still a young, small company and needs to focus on making affordable mass market cars. Making "P" and "P+" versions of the 3 is fine, just as they did with the S, but don't go beyond that. The market for a "track ready" EV is tiny.�
Jul 19, 2014
Model 3 I disagree. Model S P+ was in my opinion only made ??because they did not do a good enough job when they made ??"P". On the new models, I expect that the "P" version will nr good enough in itself. If they make a "P+" version of the Model ? so it should just be a "track ready" version. Good performance on the track is also a good advertisement for the car, and well worth creating.
But seriously, a "track ready" Model ? P++ as described above with carbon fiber etc. will be called "Roadster 3.0" :wink:�
Jul 19, 2014
dennis Let's hope the seats match the performance in the Model 3 P+ - they certainly don't in the Model S.�
Jul 19, 2014
ckessel Seems like the goal of creating a low cost mass market Tesla 3 is at odds with the concept of spending engineering time on a track version. I'm sure they'll have a P equivalent, but I have to question how much value a P++ adds to Elon's goal of increasing mass market EV adoption.�
Jul 19, 2014
TES-E I agree with ecarfan and others who correctly point out that the purpose of the Model 3 it to get a reasonable electric car in the hands of the general public, with reasonable range and at a reasonable price. We are talking folks who are driving Camrys, Accords, Ford's, Chevys, etc. Their idea of performance is getting up to freeway speeds without getting run over, getting enough groceries into the car along with the kids, and most importantly, the RANGE to get to Grandma's house and back with the whole family. Talk of performance versions is interesting, but keep in mind that this is not priority one. Range will be King here.�
Jul 19, 2014
RobStark Fuddy Duddies are missing the point.
M3's create buzz and gets auto journalist on board promoting the brand.
There really is not a lot of marginal engineering time needed. Much cheaper than a traditional marketing campaign.
Performance versions is what engineers day dream about in their spare time.
It is fun time spent away from creating transportation devices for the masses.
There are base $32k 3 Series and $90k fully loaded M3s.
Tesla should become an increasingly full line line premium manufacture like BMW and MB.
Why sell someone a $50k M III when he is willing to pay $90k for a M III P+?
As a Tesla investor I want Tesla to realize those marginal profits and invest in future vehicles that even go further down market than a base M III.
Maybe even creating a separate brand like BMW's Mini and MB's Smart.�
Jul 20, 2014
StephenM BMW makes a lot of money on their M line of vehicles. There's no way that Tesla will release a track version of the Model III in the inaugural run. Even BMW takes a year to bring their M versions to market on a new chassis. I think Tesla will take at least 2 years (if they do it at all) to bring something that could challenge an M3 on the track. I would love to see it (and trade down from my Model S) but I think the best we can hope for will be a P version.�
Jul 20, 2014
ckessel Tesla doesn't seem to lack for buzz and folks writing articles about them.
As a Tesla investor, I want Tesla to live up to their vision statement about EV adoption that Elon laid out many years ago. If a M3++ helps that, so be it. I don't give a crap if the M3++ improves margin by .9%, but I definitely care if working on the M3++ slows down work towards more mass market cars.�
Jul 20, 2014
aronth5 Agree. Like the S I expect two battery packages and a host of optional items that will bring the average price close to $50k but a M3++ isn't needed for at least a year or two after the initial model is available.�
Jul 20, 2014
wallet.dat Yeah, it kinda does. Open up any automotive magazine/site, and there will be an article about some model of BMW in one form or another. But when it comes to Tesla...crickets.�
Jul 20, 2014
TES-E Introduce a new model or a significant change and see what happens...�
Jul 20, 2014
Tasdevil It will be more of a platform/skateboard advancements that will make the tesla a better car.
Weight, even weight distribution, steering and suspension.
A lot of it relies on either a smaller and/or lighter battery pack.
Tesla already have the power and range box ticked�
Jul 21, 2014
Kevin Harney I strongly disagree !! TM seems to come out with the top first and work its way down. I would like to see a Model III coupe P+ as the first car. Actually I want a convertible first but that certainly is not going to happen. I am hoping that the reveal will have a sedan and a coupe.�
Jul 23, 2014
strider I agree w/ RobStark. Tesla has repeatedly stated that the target of the Model 3 is the BMW 3-series. This is not the Camry crowd. Those are the most conservative late adopters around; perhaps challenged only by pickup drivers - those people will not buy EV's for many more years unless gas prices tip their hands. Tesla has set a high bar as the BMW 3-series has repeatedly been named one of the best handling cars ever. Tesla's statement also implies a range of models from $35k up to $100k like the BMW 3-series. Tesla has an advantage as the chassis will need very minor changes. Elon only builds cars that Elon wants to drive. Let's remember that the P85 was available immediately. The "+" only came about because Elon wanted better suspension. Model X will be AWD and Model S will have an AWD option once Model X production is rolling. So I have every reason to expect that a Performance Model 3 will be AWD. I also expect it to tip the scales around 3,800lbs. So think about a car w/ twice the power of Model S that weighs 800lbs less? The acceleration will be insane and will create tons of buzz. If they can manage the heat in the PEM and motor it will trash an M3/M4 around a track. I will be selling my Roadster for one.�
Jul 24, 2014
Kevin Harney IMHO it needs:
0-60 < 4.0 sec
Nurburgring < 8.0 minutes
Top speed 160 mph range
and I think the "P" package will be available at the start. No waiting for the "M" version. "P+" will not be necessary as they will make the "P" version right from the beginning unlike the Model S. That lesson has been learned I hope. I just want the convertible version of this�
Jul 24, 2014
donauker Twice the motors does not equal twice the power.
Battery pack capacity * C discharge rate limit = maximum power available.�
Jul 24, 2014
strider Sure. What I left unsaid there is that I believe they will have the battery chemistry, PEM, and cooling technology to feed both motors. Who knows, maybe they could play w/ adding some capacitors for short bursts of extra power. But I also don't think they need twice the power to stomp an M3/M4. 2014 M3/M4 peak torque is 405 lb ft while Model S P85 is 443lb ft. M3 weighs 3,500lbs. I expect Model 3 to weigh 3,800lbs. I'm no physics geek but I don't think you need that much more torque to overcome the weight different. And as I stated, just think about a 3,800lb car with 800 lb ft of torque. It makes me smile. :biggrin:�
Jul 25, 2014
Red Sage strider: It sure is nice to finally have someone on my side!
$60,000 ? Tesla Model ? P135+ AWD Coupe, 500 HP/550 LB FT Torque, Top Speed 155 MPH, 0-60 3.0 Seconds, 1/4 mile in 10.2 Seconds @ 134 MPH, 505 Mile Range.
Please note that range and power each come from the same well: The bigger the battery, the more of each you have at your disposal. It all depends on how you drive it.�
Jul 25, 2014
dsm363 Would expect such a car to be well over $100,000 though.�
Jul 25, 2014
strider Yeah, $60k is low. I am expecting (and budgeting) it to be right around $100k.�
Jul 25, 2014
Red Sage No Need to Follow the Leader...
I look at it this way... The Tesla Model S originally included a 40 kWh version at around $59,900 as a base price. You could equip the Model S 40 with all the same goodies as you could the higher capacity versions (sans Supercharging), increasing its price with options to your heart's content. Meanwhile, even today, with prices being a bit higher for certain options, you basically have to get everything there is as an option for the $93,400 Model S 85 to get it to crest the $120,000 mark, doubling the cost of the base car. (Idunno about you, but I wouldn't need the vanity lighting, rear facing seats, ultra high fidelity sound, paint armor, extended napa trim... they all really add up!)
I believe the same will be true essentially for the Tesla Model ?. That is, a fully optioned top-of-the-line version of the car will cost twice as much as the bottom-of-the-line, base version of the car. So at around $60,000 for my hoped for Tesla Model ? P135+ AWD Coupe, it would be pretty well fully optioned already, except for a handful of items that might push it to $70,000 -- like maybe a Mr. Fusion.
My point with all this is that Tesla Motors will NOT follow the standard issue practices of traditional automakers, who introduce limited edition cars that are meant to hold a 'HALO' position in their lineup with ANY of the Tesla Model ? cars. All of those 'independent franchised dealerships' would certainly hang a higher price on the car I describe. They justify it all the time with various vehicles, claiming to charge 'what the market can bear'. Tesla Motors is different.
There is no need to protect sales of higher end cars. They will sell anyway. There is no need to gouge for higher performance. They can just charge a fair price, nothing more. There is no need to make a car 'exclusive' or 'limited'. Tesla Motors wants their cars to be inclusive and ubiquitous.
If fewer people buy Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG GT because of the Tesla Model ? P135+ AWD Coupe costing so little in comparison, I see that as a good thing. That much less dinosaur juice burned to pollute the atmosphere. One more driver won over from the dark side. One more evangelist of the joys of driving on gallons of light.
If someone still wants to tear up the road in their Bentley, Panoz, Bugatti, or other gas guzzler, just for the sake of 'being different', that's fine. As long as they remain among a shrinking minority.�
Jul 25, 2014
strider Tesla will make money where they can. They are not a charity. The Model S price increases are a case in point. I don't believe there was a reason to increase prices on the P85 other than people are willing to pay it. So it was a pure money grab. So if the AWD Perf Model 3 ends up wickedly fast (which I believe it will) they will charge as much as they possibly can for it regardless of what it costs to build. A Porsche 911 Turbo costs $150k. I expect that class of performance from the AWD Perf Model 3 and if you look at it that way, $100k is a bargain.�
Jul 25, 2014
Red Sage Well, it is said that Porsche achieves a 50% gross margin on the cars they sell... Far more than the 25% that Tesla Motors is accused of 'gouging' for... Keep in mind... I'm not a Porsche fan -- at all. From my point of view, their cars are something like 250% overpriced. ;-)
Seriously though, I think the idea is to make a Tesla Model ? a competitor to the BMW 3-Series, first and foremost. As such, I think it is a good idea to show how they can be both more capable, and more economical, simultaneously. Tesla Motors will sell every car they build, no matter the price. But I think it is important that their Generation III vehicles remain as affordable as possible, at least at the outset.
One thing I didn't mention before... I think that when the Tesla Model ? arrives, the Tesla Model S 60 will go away. So there will be a Tesla Model S 85, 85P, and P135+ AWD as well. Though I don't believe there should be any protection for the higher end vehicles in terms of performance... I also don't think there should be an overlap in pricing as well.
Keep in mind that I do expect Tesla Motors will offer ultra-high end vehicles eventually, after the success of Generation III. Everyone expects a new Tesla Model R roadster, and that is certain to have the chops for taking on racetracks. I think there may be a Tesla Model L limousine class pullman style vehicle. I'm certain there will also be a Tesla Model Z supercar. I think these will be the cars that will be built for the sake of pure profit.�
Jul 26, 2014
Model 3 And the Roadster will probably be based on the GIII platform with a shorted wheelbase and cost well more then the double off the base version. $100k++? It may even be called Model ? Roadster. And based on the roadster it may come a 4 seat full wheelbase coupe in more or less the same price range.
In the normal Model ? series we probably will see prices from $35k (Model ? 45) to $70k for the Model ? 90P. (Ok, maybe 95kWh). Up to $75k or $80k if it's AWD (if the base is not AWD). Yes, you probably will see the 135kWh battery-pack, but only on the GII platform, or maybe on the Tesla Truck (Model F?).�
Jul 26, 2014
Red Sage Well, this thread was meant to compare the Tesla Model ? performance version, which I would presume to be a coupe, with the BMW M3. So I only posted in regard to what I presume that will be, conceptually. To go a bit more in depth though...
I expect that the base model of the Tesla Model ? will be a five door liftback sedan. I think its trim levels and price points will be something like this:34,990 ? Model ? 60That should fall right into line with BMW 335i vehicles on the high end. I expect that a crossover version would be available at the same price points as the AWD versions. I believe that the coupe versions would be ~$5000 more for each trim level.
42,990 ? Model ? 85
47,990 ? Model ? P85+ AWD
54,990 ? Model ? P135+ AWD
?
I think the Model S 60 will go away with the introduction of Model ?. The Model S 85 would become the new base version. Model S P85+ AWD would be the medium choice. A Model S P135+ AWD would become the new flagship edition.The Model X would of course gain its own 135 kWh capacity version as well.
I expect that by 2020 a battery pack of 170 kWh to 220 kWh capacity will be available. That is what will be included in a Tesla Model P pickup truck.The pickup would also be AWD, and would have at least Class 3 towing ability, placing it on par with a Ford F-350, Chevrolet Silverado 3500 or RAM 3500 -- but I would shoot for Class 4, just to prove the point.Torque comes for free with an electric motor. So a pickup truck with significant range while towing at 55 MPH would certainly be achievable.�
Jul 26, 2014
dsm363 Can I ask why certain words are always bolded?�
Jul 26, 2014
Red Sage I'm a fan of using bold, italics, and underlining for emphasis. ;-)�
Jul 26, 2014
Model 3 Agree
I think you're too caught up in kwh, but all Elon and Tesla care about is range. Whats told is "realistic 200 mile range". I read that as 200mile EPA range. Just about the same as MS60 has today. With a 20% smaller/lighter car "everyone" has figured out it has to be 48,5kWh. What they forget is that Model ? will have a new battery chemistry with less weight pr. Wh. Therefore I guess it will be about 45kWh for ~210 miles EPA range. But it can be anything from 42kWh to 50kWh. Any more and they will miss the price point.
Naturally they will have more then one battery pack for the Model ?, but what range will they target? I have 3 guesses: to match the TMS85 at 265 miles EPA range, to match the promised range for TMS - 300 miles, but this time in EPA range. In light off the newly announced replace battery for the Roadster I can hope for an 400 miles range, but not sure it will be EPA range... So my best guess will be: Somewhere between 300 and 400 miles EPA range, and possibly one package between the two.
The longtime goal seams to be 500miles EPA range, but I don't think they there yet. Maybe for the TMS at the time TM? is on the marked?
My guesses for the pack-size will then be 45kWh/210 miles@~35K. 70kWh/270 miles@~40k. 90kWh/320 [email�protected]. The last might be up to 110kWh/360@~50k max. It will not be room for a bigger battery in this smaller car.
The "P" version will probably only be available with the biggest battery. Same goes for the coupe. Probably the coupe will only be available as a "P".
AWD: I HOPE it will be designed like the TMX with AWD as the only option. If not I guess your right about AWD only with the "P".�
Jul 26, 2014
4sevens.com 
�
Jul 26, 2014
Red Sage Range comes from higher capacity batteries. That's why none of the numerous production electric vehicles that top out at 24 kWh have a range that greatly exceeds 60 miles of use in the real world. Trust that if Tesla Motors could give you a 200+ mile range with 24 kWh of energy storage, they would.
Precisely. The problem is that Tesla Motors originally expected the Tesla Model S 60 to be rated at around 230 miles of range by the EPA. The EPA changed their testing method to a 5-cycle instead of a 2-cycle process, just in time to test the Tesla Model S variants -- which had been engineered to the old 2-cycle process. As a result of that change, all of them were rated at about 90% of the range that Tesla Motors had expected.40 kWh ? 160 instead of 180
60 kWh ? 208 instead of 230
85 kWh ? 265 instead of 300
?
Because of the fiasco that took place the last time, I don't think Tesla Motors can risk trusting the EPA not to screw them again. If Tesla engineers a car that they know will just barely scrape past the 200 mile barrier, say... 220 miles or so... then the EPA only gives them credit for only 90% of what the car can achieve again, that puts them at only 198 miles of range. Your example of shooting for 210 miles might yield only 189 from the EPA. Tesla would be raked over the coals if the car doesn't get a 200+ mile range rating from an independent source, such as the EPA.
I believe that Tesla Motors will be able to create a 60 kWh battery pack for the Tesla Model ? that uses only 60% of the battery cells that were in the original Tesla Model S 60. That gets you well beyond the 20% reduction in weight. With the Gigafactory supplying batteries, the price per cell goes down by 30-33% each. So you effectively will have 60 kWh of storage for only 40% of their cost in 2012. You get to use all the storage in a smaller space, at a lower cost, without having to resort to having a wimpy car.
As I said above, range comes from kWh capacity. The more you have, the further you can go. I expect that to work out like this as EPA ratings:250 ? Model ? 60I especially like the 60 kWh version as being the base model, because when you consider who might be buying it... Since the 'average' daily commute is less than 40 miles round trip per day... Someone who started with a full charge and drove to work and back five days a week would still have ~50+ miles of range left. Still enough to go to a friend's house for the weekend and bum a free charge overnight... Or make it to a Supercharger on the outskirts of town, fill up and hit the asphalt for a road trip. Perfect for anyone who doesn't have garage parking at home or a charging station at work.
318 ? Model ? 85
505 ? Model ? 135
?�
Jul 26, 2014
stopcrazypp I'm going to throw my guess out there for 50kWh for the base Model ?. 45kWh is likely too small to achieve 200 miles EPA range.
Just to compare, the currently most efficient EV is the i3 with 81 miles of EPA range using 18.8kWh (22kWh pack). That translates to 46.4kWh for 200 miles even assuming no buffer (using the 18.8kWh number).�
Jul 26, 2014
David_Cary And somehow I don't think the Model 3 is going to have tiny tires like the i3 or a carbon fiber construction.
20% smaller and lighter does not mean you get 20% more on a kwh. Not even close. For highway cruising, a 10% decrease in weight is worth about 1% in range. That 20% smaller size is unlikely to represent 20% less frontal area. Of course the EPA uses some stop and go so weight does matter. I suspect 10-12% increase in MPGe with resultant range/kwh battery.�
Jul 26, 2014
Red Sage Very good reasoning, and I agree, that should be enough. Unfortunately, I don't trust the EPA. What's to stop them from instituting a brand spanking new 7-cycle or 9-cycle category of testing just in time for the Tesla Model ? to arrive on the scene?
"Oh, we are SO sorry, Mr. Musk... Your car only got 150 miles in our revised testing scheme. So we're rating it at 65 MPGe..."
I'm a fan of overkill. If the car has enough battery capacity that even a blind, drunken, biased, lead-footed, anti-EV New York Times writer can't manage to get less than 200 miles of range on the coldest day since Hurricane Sandy... Then we can let the EPA test it for 'official' results.�
Jul 26, 2014
bonnie Sorry, the words you choose to bold make no sense to me. If you mean to alert the reader to something important, uhh, the usage just feels distracting. I find myself trying to figure out why you chose to bold the words you did. And yes, you are a fan of overkill. Clearly.
And I know I'm not the first one to bring this up ...�
Jul 26, 2014
Red Sage I typically use bold on formal names of people, companies, organizations, and things.
And I really like overkill.�
Jul 26, 2014
bonnie Right, but it makes it difficult for people reading the forum on phones and tablets. Out of consideration for them, perhaps you could tone it down a bit? Not a private playground ... team effort & all that.�
Jul 26, 2014
sigurdi The reason nobody have made a golf og BMW 3 series with 200 mile range is: The battery is not there today.
Tesla and others is working on better and light wait batteries, this takes time.
I guess Model 3 will have a 45kW and maybe a 55kW/60kW.
It is just not space to put in anymore, if it should have space for 5 passengers and luggage.
The roadster is a sport car with two seats and original batteries is from 2008. (6years) the development is going in the right direction but it takes time.
A100kW park or higher will be on the X and S long time before the Model 3.
Personaly I prefere long life expectance, on the pack before 400miles range.
sigurdi�
Jul 27, 2014
Model 3 Yes of course. I'm sorry, but I'm not a native speaker, so I may have problems to make it clear what I'm trying to say. To me it's looks like your to focused on the batteries capacity. What you need - in my humble opinion - is to guess on what range Tesla is targeting, then calculate what capacity the battery needs to deliver this range. Not the other way around.
Thats right. But Tesla had no big problems with talking about 300 ideal miles - EPA(2) - vs 265 miles EPA(5) range. And if EPA change the rules once more I don't think Tesla will have any problems to separate the EPA(5) range vs the EPA(9) range. But you clearly have a point about a bit "overkill" to be absolutely sure almost everybody get at least the announced range. Maybe Tesla has calculated an even more realistic test then the EPA(5) test based on the experiences with GII and will start using that test for the GIII?
Well... The 30% price reduction Elon is betting on, is it pr. cell? KG? Liters (volume)? Or is it pr. kWh? If it's the later you have just calculated the price reduction twice... :wink:
My take is:
*)
Target
Range EPA(5)
kWh battery Probability*
Minimum 200
45->50 100%
Medium
300
80->85
80%
Maximum 500 130->135 3%
"Probability" is "What is the chance that Tesla in 2016 can get room for this capacity in a car thats 20% smaller then TMS for a price that the marked will pay".
You might be right here, I have not made a precise calculation here, just giving some numbers that is in the right ballpark. But in 2017 I think i3 is not longer the most efficient EV on the marked
I disagreed. My guess is that they almost can put in a 60kWh of the same chemistry as in use in the TMS today. GIII will have a newer chemistry and can squeeze in more then 60kWh, maybe 90kWh, but not much more.
Agreed on both�
Jul 27, 2014
green1 While we can safely assume that the Model 3 will be a much better vehicle than the i3, I don't think it's safe to assume it will be more "efficient," just longer range. The Model S is actually not all that efficient a vehicle, they just placed aesthetics and function above efficiency (and rightly so) The i3 is quite likely to be a lighter weight vehicle than the Model 3, and that alone leads to large efficiency gains. (The carbon fibre plastic panels instead of aluminum, and the smaller battery both pretty much guarantee that)
The Model 3 will be more efficient than the S, based mostly on weight, though probably smaller tires for some more efficiency, and possible improvements in electronics (it has been a few years since the S first hit the road) It will also have a smaller frontal area, though I don't know if I'd count on any better drag coefficient, they have more experience now, but there are certain constraints here if people want to be able to actually sit in the car, and if they want it to look like something people want to buy.
All said, Model 3 will probably be more efficient than the S, but less efficient than an i3 (or any short range (and therefore light weight) EV�
Jul 27, 2014
CHGolferJim
If close to that, Model3 will be truly a "3-series killer".�
Jul 27, 2014
dsm363 If the P135+ AWD Model 3 is $55,000 that will destroy Model S resale value. You are also saying Tesla (bolded) will only charge $7,000 for an additional 50kWh capacity when they charge $10,000 for 25kWh additional capacity now?�
Jul 27, 2014
Red Sage No. The Tesla Model ? is the goal, the endgame, its sales are more important than anything else in the Tesla Motors product line. The Model S does not need to be protected in either resale value or for new purchases. People who want it will buy it regardless, because of the size, utility, and prestige. People who bought a Model S in 2012 are not likely to want to sell it in 2016 or 2017. If anything, they'll keep the car and upgrade to a 135 kWh battery pack, getting trade-in value from Tesla Motors for their older 40 kWh, 60 kWh, or 85 kWh battery pack. Fewer people willing to sell will keep the price higher for those who do. Sorted.
Look closer. The higher prices are primarily for the AWD function in my projections. Besides, there would probably be at least another $10,000 in options someone could add on top of that if they wanted. I am saying that the 135 kWh battery pack will only be offered for the AWD version. I don't think it makes sense otherwise on the smaller car. So the difference in price for the RWD 85 kWh version and the AWD 135 kWh version is actually $12,000. The difference between the RWD 60 kWh version and the RWD 85 kWh version is $8,000. Further, I believe there would be a $5,000 premium for the coupe version, which would hopefully include Falcon Wing Doors, at each trim level, because it would be projected to sell in lower quantities than the sedan and crossover.
Yup. I think that's the idea. I think it is a really good idea. It's... a strategy. ;-)�
Jul 27, 2014
sigurdi I just do not se batteries abow 85kWh for the S or Model 3.
If the X get high trailer waight capabilit, maybe a large battery. (you need large battery to drive some miles with a Trailer behind you)
The rest have not need for it, and while the population of SC is growing the need gets lower.
More charging time at SC, more dead waight to drag with you.
When the SC network is covering everywhere you drive, you need a 20-30 min stop every 3 hours. Drive for 6 hours and 1 hour stop instead, is actualy more dangerous. (I also have to pee after 3 hours driving and drikking Coca Cola or coffie)
The 2. and most importen view is that Tesla do not get enouch batteries for the demand, this is getting better, but will be a bootlenek until the Gigafactory is producing a reasonable amount of batteries.
If cars is delivered with lagrer packs it will be less packs to put in cars, eks a 135kWh, could give one 85kWh to an X and a 50kWh to a Model 3.
(It is not just that easy, sine the individual cells getting more capasity, so a 100kWh can have the same cell count as a 85kWh today.)
Looking forward for the next years to se what will happen, and to se the X equitment and pack size.
sigurdi�
Jul 27, 2014
ryanjm Folks here are missing a question in the OP, which asked if the MIII Performance car will have higher performance than the Model S P85. The answer is "Yes" -- just as the BMW M3 is quicker than its highest performance 7 Series.
To the other discussion in this thread: Red Sage, I love your enthusiasm (I really do!), but respectfully, you are nuts if you think Tesla is going to ship a 500-mile range M3-besting performance car for $60k.
Here's how I see it:
MIII will ship with two battery sizes (exact kWh hour size TBD based on battery chemistry): a 200-ish mile base option and a 300-ish mile upgrade. Model S -- which is also due for a refresh about the time Model III hits, per previous Tesla comments -- will drop the 60kWh and go with an 85kWh (265-mile range) and a new 350-400-mile range battery (again, kWh-size TBD).
Look at current Tesla option pricing to guide you; this is how I'm planning for my Model III, anyway:
$35k base price
+$10k bigger battery
+$10k performance package
+$10k options (tech package, pano roof, dual chargers, etc.)
+$5k performance options (spoiler, larger wheels; I expect 17" for base and 19" as the upgrade)
And you're at roughly $70k.
How that car will compare to a BMW M3 on a track remains to be seen, but Elon has made it very clear about one thing: the MIII will torch the M3 off the line. And if you think that's a bit cheap compared to the Bimmer, remember that the Model S costs a lot less than some of its competition (particularly the Panamera) and outperforms them. It's a big reason why the Model S is eating many of its competitors' lunches right now in its category.
Anyway I hope I'm not TOO wrong...only because $70k is going to be at the extreme limit of what I can afford with this car as it is.�
Jul 27, 2014
Red Sage Well, one of my suggestions is that even the 60 kWh version of the Tesla Model ? should actually have an 85 kWh battery pack that is software limited. People could pay the difference in price after purchase to get the extra range. It would simplify inventory so that you wouldn't have to keep track of which packs were installed off the line, except for what I presume would be a 135 kWh battery pack in the top-of-the-line version of the cars.
Here is what I was speaking of before... Let's use round numbers to illustrate what I think about this. Also, this will presume that Tesla uses as few battery cells as possible to achieve the expected capacity in each battery pack:
See? Though availability of 18650 battery cells may be a bottleneck, it will be somewhat diminished as an issue, because the cells used in the future will be more efficient at energy storage. I'm presuming a minimum of 40% improvement in energy density. As a result, only 60% of the cells will be needed at each power level.
Vehicle # Battery Cells
Model S 85 (2012) ~7000 Model S 60 (2012) ~5000 Model ? 85 (2016) ~4200 Model ? 60 (2016) ~3000
In other words, the number of battery cells that would have only powered three (3) cars at 85 kWh in 2012 will be enough to power five (5) cars in 2016, while delivering the same 85 kWh capacity to each.
Likewise, with those individual cells being provided by the Gigafactory, your cost per car goes down even further, another 30-33%, as compared to 2012.
With the battery cells from 2012, it would have taken about ~11,100 of them to get 135 kWh of storage. With a 40% improvement in storage capacity, that drops to only ~6,700 battery cells instead. And that quantity would fit inside the battery pack for the Tesla Model S just fine. I presume the same would be true of Model ? P135+ battery packs as well.�
Jul 27, 2014
Red Sage I'm a little confused, because though I may indeed be nuts, it seems as if you agree with me...
Yes. And if you check above, I wrote, "The higher prices are primarily for the AWD function in my projections. Besides, there would probably be at least another $10,000 in options someone could add on top of that if they wanted." That would mean a fully optioned version of the Tesla Model ? P135+ AWD Coupe I described would top out at $70,000.
Once again, this is precisely the argument I have made all along. The top-of-the-line versions of Porsche Panamera, BMW 7-Series, and Mercedes-Benz S-Class are all fully 50% more expensive than the Tesla Model S P85. Thus, I expect that a BMW M3 will cost roughly 50% more than a Tesla Model P135+.
Maybe I wasn't being clear before? The prices that I project for Tesla Model ? are all the base prices at each trim level. I believe that the 60 kWh battery pack would only be available as RWD. I believe that the lowest cost version of the 85 kWh battery pack would still be RWD. I expect that to get AWD you will have to get a Performance version of the car, with either an 85 kWh or 135 kWh battery pack. Each of these can be optioned upward, the same way that a BMW, AUDI, Mercedes-Benz, Chevrolet, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, or anything else with a starting price point at around $35,000 can be. I believe that every iteration of the Tesla Model ? will be very profitable for Tesla Motors using this strategy.�
Jul 27, 2014
Tasdevil 10k minus "conservative 30% savings on battery from gigafactory."�
Jul 27, 2014
RobStark Buzz needs newness to keep going. I am not talking about now but 5 years from now.
Improving margins creates more money to invest in future down market cars. It is more likely Tesla can raise outside funds at cheaper rates.
High performance variations in no way slows down moving down market. That is a function mostly of battery chemistry and cost.
To suggest otherwise is ignorance.�
Jul 27, 2014
stopcrazypp I think he's referring more to engineering resources, which Tesla has a limited amount compared to other companies (seems like Tesla can only really work on one or two things at a time).
Having a "halo" version of the Model ? is far less important than getting the engineering of the overall model right (despite many people here who wish for more attention to be put into "halo" models, since that is what they intend to buy).
No doubt Tesla might launch first with the largest capacity version (like the 85kWh did with the Model S), but higher performance versions than that might be a lower priority (just like how the P85+ came afterwards).�
Jul 27, 2014
ryanjm I hope you're right, but do you really expect Tesla to pass that savings on to the customer? I love Tesla, but I expect that the larger battery option is going to be +$10k no matter if it costs the company less than it does today, as that's what they've conditioned people to expect. That, and it's a GREAT way for them to make more profit on many of the cars.
- - - Updated - - -
I guess my point is that I don't think Tesla will be releasing a 505-mile car in the Model III line anytime soon. Period. If (or rather, when) they get there, it's going to be on the Model S first. And there's no way an AWD performance car with 500-mile range is going to be $70k. That's just wildly optimistic. (Though again, I love your optimism! :smile: )
And I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that a MIII AWD Coupe will be available at launch (i.e. 2017), but I don't think there's much chance of that. Those features will come online later after the initial launch of the sedan.�
Jul 27, 2014
aronth5 Not sure I agree that the EPA screwed them the first. If I'm a buyer which is closer to the actual range owners are getting? Tesla's 300 miles or the EPA's 265?
When you factor in the real world, weather and typical driving habits the 265 rated range is certainly more accurate, especially for someone considering purchasing the Model S.�
Jul 27, 2014
30seconds By then I would expect something like a 75 and 100kW pack options. No reason to think that there wouldn't be some improvement if the 60pack isn't big enough to get the 3 to 200miles. These are also probable reasonable upgrades to a mid cycle model s refresh as well�
Jul 27, 2014
Red Sage The range is really just a matter of the projected capacity of the battery pack for the top-of-the-line version. I expect that the majority of people will purchase the Tesla Model ? sort of like this, over its lifetime:
Vehicle
% ?S - Sedan 70 ?M - Minivan 20 ?X - Crossover 5 ?C - Coupe 2
?W - Wagon 2
?R - Roadster 1 One of the consistent points that Elon says is that their cars cannot be at a mark that is only about the same as other cars. They must be demonstrably better. The performance versions of the BMW 3-Series really don't have that great a range. In fact, not one of them has a range of even 400 miles as rated by the EPA. So if the top-of-the-line Tesla Model ? can achieve an EPA range of 505 miles, while blowing their doors off, it will be an absolute coup de tat in this range of vehicles.
Trim
%
60 10 85 60 P85+ 20 P135+ 10
This is especially awesome due to the fact the 2015 BMW M3 is rated at only a 300 mile range. Imagine the shockwave it would send through the industry if an electric vehicle could defeat a BMW M3 in performance while achieving a range just short of the 555 miles attainable in the BMW 328d. That is why a 135 kWh battery pack must be made available on the Tesla Model ?.
I have actually written precisely that elsewhere, on the Tesla Motors Forums. I didn't mention it in this thread, because it was about comparisons of the BMW M3 and Tesla Model ?. I think far too many people are way too pessimistic about Tesla's future. So yes, I believe a 135 kWh version of Tesla Model S and Model X will appear for sale by 2016. I expect that the option for that battery pack size will definitely be available in time for an AWD Model S. Unlike some, I believe that the first owners will receive their Model ? before the end of 2016.
We'll see. Though, honestly...? The phrase, "Yes, WAY!", comes to mind... BTW, I believe the 'Drive It Like You Stole It' range will probably be ~350 miles. On the BMW? Well... Uhm... Not so much. :-D
Well, I do try to point out that what I write on the subject is a [WHISKEY ALPHA GOLF] as often as possible. I just try to support that notion with the limited information I have available to me. Then I try to back that up with Third Grade mathematics for the sake of minimal argument. Since this is about projections for the future, I choose to focus on what I believe the minimum goals for an awesome future should be...
I think too many enthusiasts have had their personal crystal balls clouded by the comparatively sub-par efforts of traditional automakers, who are still tied to the lodestone of 'independent franchised dealerships' as their customers. I know that Elon Musk wants to make cars that he would personally be happy with, and I use that as my guide. I think he would like my projections. As noted in my signature, I have no problem at all being wrong. I'd much rather be optimistic at this juncture though, because I think Tesla Motors is set to surprise a whole lot of people. ;-)
I hope that a coupe is among the launch vehicles for the Tesla Model ?. But I'm not holding my breath for it. Coupes sell in very, very, very small numbers compared to sedans, minivans, crossovers, SUVs, pickup trucks... But again, this thread is a comparison of the Tesla Model ?, versus the BMW M3, and that car is to my knowledge usually offered as a coupe, or 'two-door sedan', even if a four-door is on offer.
Did I mention that I really don't like sedans?
I believe that Tesla Motors will show at least three vehicle configurations at the introduction of Tesla Model ?, hopefully at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, January 2015. I do not expect a coupe to be shown among them, but I desperately pray for it. I expect that a five-door liftback sedan, minivan, and crossover (or wagon) will be shown. There is an outside chance that a compact three-door liftback will be shown. There is a strong hope by many I'm sure that a hardtop convertible 2+2 will be shown. I don't want any of those.
The car I want is as I've stated before. I can wait as long as it takes for Tesla Motors to make it. It would be a five passenger liftback coupe with Falcon Wing Doors, available All Wheel Drive, five hundred horsepower, five hundred fifty lb-ft torque, and a 500+ mile range when you 'Drive It Like A Hippie Tree Hugger'. I expect to pay a premium of around $5,000 just to get that configuration instead of a sedan, wagon, or crossover version. I would get the compact three-door if I had no other choice.�
Jul 27, 2014
Red Sage I accept they may not have done it 'on purpose'. The result is the same. It allows Naysayers to claim that Elon Musk lied.
The car was engineered to meet the 2-cycle protocol. That involved a certain distance traveled at 55 mph on level ground. The Tesla Model S 85, driven on level ground at 55 MPH will go 300 miles. If you use hypermiling techniques (AKA, 'Drive It Like A Hippie Tree-Hugger'), you can get the car to 400 miles.
Typical driving habits of anyone who complains about range are that they 'Drive It Like You Stole It'. So, for them, 'real world range' is something like 70% of the EPA rating, on the low end -- 180-195 miles. Typical driving habits for people who drive 'The Approximate Posted Speed Limit' (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) generally yield ~230 miles 'per tank'. The EPA does neither in their testing. People who are careful about the Wh used per mile typically can travel the full 265 miles and have 'extra miles' left over with relatively conservative driving at around 5 MPH below the posted speed limit.�
Jul 27, 2014
VCanucks Perhaps the Saleen version of the Model 3 will be the M3 destroying, track killing beast people seem to be craving. Personally I don't think Tesla would go down this route unless they come up with their own racing development team similar to AMG, M, SRT and the likes.�
Jul 27, 2014
Red Sage VCanucks: My feeling is that it would be the difference instead between an early 1990s Camaro Z28 (Tesla Model ?) vs a Saleen Mustang (BMW M3). Always amazed me that people paid so much more for a Mustang that was still slower than a stock Camaro. Tesla Motors won't even have to make a track version of the Model ? to smoke the M3. The ordinary, everyday, street legal, stock, performance version of the car off the assembly line will reign supreme from day one.�
Jul 28, 2014
Tasdevil Well if the s60 and s85 have the same battery but the s60 is software limited.
Either the s60 battery price is eating into the cars profits. Or the 10k to go from s60 to s85 is pure profit. (Minus supercharger access).
So it's actually quite hard to determine the new battery price.�
Jul 28, 2014
sigurdi Lowering the number of cells is not a good idea, with todays used ion cells.
The litium ion cells Tesla use have long life, but slow charge and discharge ability.
Lower number of cells gives less power to use and slower supercharging speed.
Just se at the S60 compared to the S85.
Battery development is a slow prosess. New cell type, chemistry, additives in the elocrolyte need time consuming testing, before mass production.
The first development of the capacity of the cells, will not show up on larger kWh in the cars.
They will start keeping the cells at 80% when the consumer think they have 100%, this will give cells with almost none parasictic reactions in the cell at "full"charge and a batterypack that lives longer than the car.
I prefere long life on the battery instead of large capascity.
One thing that can arive (Tesla patent) is a battery mix, litium ion cells for normal use, and a range extender with litium air battery.
Model 3 with 50kWh as base and 50kWh air battery, you can charge maybe 200 times when you need range extender.
sigurdi�
Jul 28, 2014
dsm363 This whole thread has gotten wildly off topic with the P135 bit but that is highly unlikely especially at half the price of the Model S P85 today.
The P Model 3 likely will compete well with the M3. Will be exciting to see what Tesla does.�
Jul 28, 2014
Red Sage Well, the alternative would be to build a 'Supercar' such as the BMW i8... A car that can technically achieve a very fast 0-60 time... And a very decent 1/4 mile run... But only at a full charge, and only for two or three runs, before being 'limited' thereafter... I really don't think that is the strategy that Tesla Motors will employ.�
Jul 28, 2014
dsm363 The Model 3 is their mass market car though.
They may very well build the a roadster off of the Model 3 platform. The P Model 3 could also even have similar performance to the P85 today but would expect the P One hundred something AWD+ Model S to be out by then and provide true track performance and better 0-60 time.�
Jul 28, 2014
Red Sage I really think it is a mistake to overlook the benefits of an electric drivetrain as compared to an ICE. I believe that all of the advantages than an ICE may currently enjoy over a BEV will gradually erode to nothingness. So I attempt to predict how the Tesla Model ? will combat its primary competition, the BMW 3-Series.
I have a lot of enthusiasm for, a firm faith in, and a lot of hope for Tesla Motors. I believe their goals are all attainable within a rather short time frame. Much sooner than Naysayers think, and way sooner than most hope.
My projections are for what I believe will be necessary to silence Naysayers, once and for all.�
Jul 29, 2014
Mavi57 Is 4.2 sec, like the P85+ Model S fast enough? The I8 isn't a super EV, it's an hybrid with limited EV capacities. Nothing super about that.�
Jul 29, 2014
strider Nope. I want a 3-second 0-60.�
Jul 29, 2014
wallet.dat Same. I want to be able to beat a BMW M3/M4 in every category.�
Jul 29, 2014
Red Sage Price/Performance Ratio & Range Comparisons...
I kept wondering why people here kept saying that a Tesla Model ? Coupe such as the AWD P135+ variant I described would/should command a price tag in excess of $100,000... So. I stopped by the BMW website. I learned something very important to this discussion.
There is no longer any such thing as a BMW M3. You see, BMW now rolls sales of their 3-Series and 4-Series vehicles into one another, they are not reported separately. So essentially, the top-line BMW 3-Series Coupe is actually the BMW M4 Coupe.
That car starts at $62,400. I decided to use the configurator to 'build my own' version of the BMW M4 Coupe. For some reason, it is unfortunately not available in RED. That's a real shame, but I chose the Sakhir Orange Metallic, which is close enough. I piled on the interior packages for Driver Assistance Plus, Executive, and Lighting. I added every Performance, Convenience, and Entertainment option. Well, all except the $350 'power rear sunshade', anyway. That brought the total to a whopping huge $88,875. Close, but not quite $100,000.
Please note that I'm not really a guy who goes for luxury & convenience stuff. So in the real world, if I were buying one of these, I'd spend a lot less than that. Of all the things in that configuration for the BMW M4, probably the only ones I would consider a 'must have' are the moonroof, which was listed as a no charge addition, and probably the 'Enhanced USB and Bluetooth plus Smartphone Integration'. I did leave it configured with the automatic transmission, because those are consistently faster and get better fuel economy on BMWs.
Let's take a look at the potential 'competition' for a Tesla Model ? Coupe, shall we?
DOH! I forgot about these:
Price
Vehicle
Range
Miles/km
HP
39,900 Audi TT Coupe quattro 411/663 211 42,600 Infiniti Q60 AWD Coupe 400/645 330 42,500 BMW 428i xDrive Coupe 411/663 240 48,000 BMW 435i xDrive Coupe 379/611 300 64,200 BMW M4 Coupe 303/489 425 39,900 Tesla Model ? 60 Coupe 250/403 300 47,900 Tesla Model ? 85 Coupe 318/513 416 52,900 Tesla Model ? P85+ AWD Coupe 318/513 416 59,900 Tesla Model ? P135+ AWD Coupe 505/815 500
So ultimately, it appears that this boils down to three vehicles:
Price
Vehicle
Range
miles/km
HP
39,495 Cadillac CTS Coupe 3.6 378/609 318 41,495 Cadillac CTS AWD Coupe 3.6 378/609 318 63,600 Cadillac CTS V Coupe 252/406 556 75,000 Cadillac ELR 340/548 217
Which would you recommend?
- BMW M4 Coupe
- Cadillac CTS V Coupe
- Tesla Model ? P135+ AWD Coupe
�
Jul 29, 2014
aronth5 Not sure on why your omitting the BMW M3 Sedan that starts a $62,000? And when do you expect Tesla to come out with a coup model since it is very unlikely that will happen until 1-2 years after the initial Model 3 comes out.
http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/byo/byohome.aspx?namodelcode=15TN
�
Jul 29, 2014
dsm363 I know we are speculating but does anyone else really believe Tesla will put out a 135kWh pack in their entry level car in 3 years? It likely won't even be in the Model S in 3 years.�
Jul 29, 2014
Red Sage aronth5: Maybe I didn't mention it before... But I don't particularly care for sedans, the Tesla Model S is the only 'sports sedan' I recognize, and I'm not a BMW fan, so I keep forgetting there are 'M' versions of their sedans. That's why I've continually said that I hope for a Tesla Model ? P135+ AWD Coupe. I looked for the closest potential competitors to what I expect that car will be, and listed them above.
It may not be in this thread, but another... I have posted that it is highly unlikely a Tesla Model ? Coupe will appear in a timely fashion. If it does come, it will likely be preceded by: Sedan, Crossover, Wagon, Minivan, 3-Door Sporthatch, Convertible 2+2... I will probably have to wait a while at the back of the line. ;-)
dsm363: I think that there will be a 135 kWh battery pack in the Tesla Model S in two years, 2016. I realize that is very optimistic, but it is not unrealistic. It matches the ~40% improvement from the 53 kWh battery pack on the 2008 Tesla Roadster, to the 85 kWh battery pack on the 2012 Tesla Model S. It is very likely that a 110 kWh battery pack will be available at the very least by 2016. 110 kWh matches the ~8% annual improvement in lithium ion storage capacity that has been observed by JB Straubel.�
Jul 29, 2014
James Anders The M4 or M series coupe is just a great looking car. I REALLY hope that the Model /// is offered in a 2 door coupe variant and that it looks as good or better than the BMW 4 coupe.�
Jul 29, 2014
Red Sage James Anders: Yeah, I'm rather afraid that I will have to settle for a Tesla Model ? sedan or sporthatch while waiting for a coupe to materialize.
I had been thinking in terms of Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti brands... Legend coupe & sedan... Integra sedan and sporthatch... LS sedan & SC coupe... Infiniti M/Q sedan & coupe...
But I had forgotten how much weight that sedans, minivans, SUVs, & crossovers command in the sales market these days. Since the Tesla Model ? is meant to be a mass market car, and coupes are such a tiny portion of mass market sales, it is likely I will not be able to get a coupe at the Generation III launch.�
Jul 29, 2014
dsm363 Just for reference I cut and paste ?
into search and it turns into ☰ and gives zero results. Writing 3 instead of ? would be helpful. I know ? looks cool but Tesla calls this model the Model 3, not model ?.�
Jul 30, 2014
Red Sage 
Because this logo exists, I won't be using MIII or MIII or M/// or even M3. Until such time as a logo is unveiled, I'll be writing Tesla Model ?. It represents a numeral '3' and I pronounce it as 'three', even as I think of it as 'E'. Whether you see it as 1337-speak or not is up to you. I'm pretty sure that someone doing a search online will be able to find Tesla Motors Club and the various posts on Bluestar, Generation III, or Model ? without issue. Oh, there is also the fact that I am not a BMW fan.�
Jul 30, 2014
sigurdi @Red Sage
When you estimate the battery size on a Model ? to 135kWh you use the Roadster 56kW battery compared to the S85.
The 56kWh Roadster weights 990 pounds http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/battery and the S85 clocks in at 1323 pounds.
It is 35% more capacity and 25% with same weight on the 4 years from 2008 to 2012.
They changed to a aluminum based cathode, that gave less weight.
With same speed to 2016 it would give a 106kWh battery with the same size and weight as the S85 battery. (1323 pounds)
This could not fit in the Model ?, when the battery chemistry gets better you can get smaller and lighter batteries with same capacity or the same size with higher capacity.
Not both at the same time.
(35% larger capacity and 35% less weight/size needs a 70% better battery.)
sigurdi�
Jul 30, 2014
rogbmw Fun reading this thread....but everything is pure guesswork at this point. Heck...we have not even seen/driven the Beta X yet!�
Jul 30, 2014
dsm363 Yes that is the BMW logo and it already exists. Thing is Tesla hasn't released the logo or even a rough sketch of the Model 3 yet. Wouldn't it make more sense to write what Tesla says they'll call it instead of making up a logo just for clarity? I know writing three lines sideways looks cool and there are 3 lines and it looks like an E in the old Model E and all. Tesla isn't calling it MIII or MIII or M/// or even M3 rather Model 3 or Model III as some news outlets have written. Tesla so far has simply said Model 3. I put that in bold for emphasis. Anyway, it was just a suggestion but up to you of course.�
Jul 30, 2014
strider Read my post #28 again:
Tesla Model 3 P+ vs BMW M3? - Page 3
That is why I think they'll charge $100k. Because they CAN.
Also, why did you leave the power the same for the AWD model? Tesla will use 2 motors to get AWD so depending on battery chemistry and PEM construction it could have double the HP of the base model.
My vote on this is to call it the "Model 3" or abbreviate "TM3" to differentiate from BMW. You'd think Tesla would have thought about this since they claim the BMW 3-series is the target of the TM3. -<whee>-�
Jul 30, 2014
Red Sage Yes. Because this is a comparison that JB Straubel himself has made. Specifically, he said that the Tesla Model S 85 achieved a higher capacity using fewer 18650 battery cells as compared to the Tesla Roadster at 53 kWh.
It seems here you are comparing the form factor of the battery packs, not the number of battery cells encased within them. The Model S battery pack is a completely different form factor, designed to at once be a stressed member of the frame once installed, as well as to be readily removable for the sake of battery swaps. Neither of those functions was required or engineered for the Tesla Roadster. The battery pack for the Tesla Model S is purposely overbuilt and armored to minimize intrusion and thermal runaway to be as safe as possible in the event of an accident. It is necessarily heavier because of these engineering concerns, not because of the weight of the battery cells themselves.
The battery cells remain the same size and form factor. They are 18650 cells. I'm pretty sure I've said that I expect the capacity to increase, not the size of the cells to decrease. I'm pretty sure I've said, though perhaps not in this particular conversation, that fewer 18650 cells, with higher capacity, could together in an array, store a higher amount of energy.�
Jul 30, 2014
dsm363
You know this for a fact? The Roadster has 6,831 cells if I remember correctly. The Model S 85 kWh pack has 7,104 cells.�
Jul 30, 2014
dsm363 18650 cells are by definition always the same size. 18mm diameter, 65mm high.�
Jul 30, 2014
stopcrazypp I don't know if Straubel ever said something like that, but if Straubel said something to that effect, he may have been talking about the Model S 60kWh. That one has 14 instead of the 16 modules in the 85kWh, which means 6216 cells in the 60kWh pack. So it has more capacity than the Roadster with fewer cells.�
Jul 31, 2014
sigurdi I have been talking about the pack itself, when comparing size not the 18650 cells.
And with new factory build from scratches, who says they have to stick to 18650 form factor?
The individual cells get higher capasity with same weight or lower weight and keeps the capasity.
Voltage on indevidual cells can also be changed the drawback with large changes is time consuming testing.
I do not think Tesla will lower the safety standard on the TM3 compared to the ModelS Pack.
The wrapping will be smaler so less weight, the drawback is less space for cells.
Less cells in serie gives less Voltage, less cells in parallell gives less capasity.
Better batteries with more Wh/kg is the solution.
One importen thing with TM3 they cant take a risk on the battery lifetime or fire risk, when the gold is to sell several 100 000 cars a year.
Tesla would not survive if the batteries died after 2-3 years or other major failures.
TM3 with less than 50kWh as standard and more exlusive 75kWh pack.
sigurdi�
Jul 31, 2014
sigurdi 53kWh with 6831 cells vs 60kWh 6216 cells is a increase of 24.4% (from 2008-2012)
The same progress from 2012 to 2016 (as mentioned before) will give a model S or X a 106kWh battery pack with same size as the 85kWh today.
Not a 135kWh pack that need to be 20% smaler in size.
Hope for a 100kWh pack option in the model X.
sigurdi�
Jul 31, 2014
Red Sage JB Straubel. Multiple times. He has said that people keep harping about the 18650 form factor and that it doesn't matter. What matters is energy density. He says that for all the various configurations of batteries they have explored, none of them trump their use of an array of 18650 cells. He says there is no need to move to bigger individual battery cells. All evidence points to the superior efficiency of using several smaller batteries instead.
- - - Updated - - -
Oops! Sorry... He definitely said 'something like that'... It was in one of three videos I typically reference. I'll check them again and get back to you guys. My apologies in advance, assuming I misquoted or paraphrased incorrectly.
;-)�
Jul 31, 2014
sigurdi I did not say larger cells.
Smal cells is better, but do they ned to be as big as 18650?
Array of smal cells is superior to larger, you can connect them in seies and parallell and build a battery pack with the Voltage and current you need.
If one cell or 10 dies it do not infect the pack.
Pack of large cells, the death of one cell have impackt on the pack.�
Jul 31, 2014
stopcrazypp I would be careful about using only the 60kWh for comparison as it appears to use less energy dense cells. The 85kWh has 7104 cells, which means a 46% improvement (using 56kWh for Roadster).�
Jul 31, 2014
Red Sage Right now, yes. Tomorrow, maybe not. The 18650 battery cell is a known quantity, studied in depth by JB Straubel for well over a decade. The amount of energy stored, its rate of discharge, its lifespan, its resistance to the elements, its chemistry, volume, weight, and capacity and any variables among them are all fully understood. So the software balancing, electronic control systems, and temperature protections that are designed to work with them are optimized specifically for the variables of the 18650 form factor. All those things would have to be designed again from scratch to work with a different cell size or configuration.
100th Post! :tongue: :wink: :biggrin: :smile:�
Jul 31, 2014
sigurdi Most of the things you mentioned will be changes, when they are getting higher densety by altering the electrolyte, additives or anode catode.
Like when they changes the catode from cobolt - (LiCoO2 roadster) to cobolt- aluminium in Model S.
And Sorry
My mistake, the S60 have 5040 cells, and that gives the same densety as the S85.
The increase from roadster when only using the cellcount and kWh gives 54% increase.
Same speed gives a 130kWh in a model S/X in 2016.
Still do not se 135kWh in TM3
A AWD to be racing - Nope
Maybe in 2020.
sigurdi�
Aug 1, 2014
Model 3 Well, they told us yesterday on the conference call that they will not stick to 18650 form factor. The new cells will be about 10% wider and 10% higher(?). Something like 20710 maybe?
I did expected a wider cell, but not taller. Rather I guessed on a shorter cell to make the "surfboard" thinner and give more legroom in the car.�
Aug 1, 2014
Kevin Harney Given the same battery size area (L x W) what will that do to kWh (is this the right term) ? ie a MS 85 would possibly become a 120 ? What are the implications for the Model 3 ? ie. a 20% smaller pack with 20% increase in density ? Could a Model 3 potentially have a 85kWh battery ?�
Aug 1, 2014
Red Sage I was pretty surprised to learn they intend to make any physical changes to the battery cells themselves. I had been under the impression that JB Straubel had vetoed that necessity. He did specifically say they would stay with cylindrical battery cells. I have thought all along that an 85 kWh battery pack would be possible, and that the minimum that would be offered is 60 kWh, for the Tesla Model ?.�
Aug 1, 2014
dsm363 The Model 3 as well.�
Aug 1, 2014
Model 3 Yes, they have told us that they think the cylindrical form is best for temperature control. But is also been said that they may alter the size a bit. On that ground I expected it to be wider and lower.�
Aug 1, 2014
stopcrazypp They have said the optimal size is about twice the size of the current cell. I expect wider but not lower. Lower would make the surface area to volume ratio even worse on the sides (in practical terms only the sides of the cell can be used for heat exchange). The existing 26650 format would match this criteria perfectly.
It seems from the conference call they might even make it taller (which would help heat exchange area).�
Aug 1, 2014
Tasdevil It makes sense to increase the size of the battery height just from a production stand point.
If the height is increased, the length and width of the pack can be less allowing the same size pack to be fitted to the S, X & 3.�
Aug 2, 2014
Model 3 Ok, I must have missed that part.
My argument for the lower cell was just to make the battery pack lower, and not "steal" so much legroom. But your arguments here makes more sense�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét