Thứ Ba, 3 tháng 1, 2017

300+ Mile Model 3? part 1

  • Jul 22, 2015
    ratsbew
    Will there be a 300+ mile Model 3? I'm really hoping that they offer a larger battery choice that will allow me to take longer road trips.

    Some longer day trips don't make efficient use of superchargers and I need the longer range. I'm happy to drive 55mph if it means stretching past 300 miles.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    vinnie97
    Not so fast, I would not be so quick to be happy about traveling 55mph on an 80mph interstate for instance. Nobody knows the answer to your question, but there is plenty of speculation that just like the Model S, there will be multiple battery size options.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    David99
    Unless there is a breakthrough in battery technology, I doubt it. They will make the Model 3 a little more efficient, lighter and smaller, but they have to reduce cost quite a bit to get close to their target price. The most expensive part is the battery. To get 300 miles even on a smaller car it would still be a battery similar sized to the Model S and that's unlikely. But I hope I will be totally wrong!

    There are many things that contribute to better range. The BMW i3, while a very different car, uses about 1/3 less energy in the same EPA test than the Model S. Lightweight construction (carbon fiber), smaller size, more efficient components and tires, not built for performance but for efficiency, ... Lots of things add up.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    Kevin Harney
    I believe there will be a 300 mile battery in the Model 3 but it won't be the base model at all. More like the ludicrous model.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    ratsbew
    I drive 55mph in my gas car on the interstate all the time.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    Zextraterrestrial
    All 85kWhr model S' will do 300 miles if you drive 55mph for most trips
    Model 3 should do it no problem!
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    aronth5
    There is much speculation based on hints by Musk and JB that the next battery format will be approximately 10% longer and 10% larger. This would likely mean the format for the Model 3 will about 20720. That means more energy density in the same area so I'm expecting the Model 3 will definitely have a battery option that will exceed 300 miles.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    Grendal
    It would be a stupid business decision if there wasn't a larger battery pack option for the Model 3 and Tesla/Elon have not done stupid things yet. So there will be a larger battery option that will likely be the very first cars leaving the factory. I expect they will follow the Signature, Performance, max pack, loaded, and possibly dual (but I'm not counting on that) pattern to production. The sad thing is that I'm not expecting any $35K cars to go for a full year after they begin production. The reason is that I believe there will be over 100,000 pre-orders for the max battery pack car. Tesla has to make money and the $35K car will be the least profitable version sold. Everything will be gearing up for full 500K production by 2020. That's a lot of ramp up that will need to be done. Maximize your profits and increase production will be all that Tesla will be able to focus on.

    The max pack will likely be around 280 mile range. 300 is asking too much unless they have three different battery pack levels and I wouldn't expect that. 300 range packs will come along later as an upgrade as battery tech improves. I guarantee you that there will be a Model S and Model X that uses the Model 3 battery and those will absolutely go more than 300 with the improvement.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    S'toon
    Given that we know absolutely nothing at this point, any speculation about 300 mile range is as valid as not.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    igotzzoom
    If I have the road, I routinely drive 75-80 on the highway. If I could get a predictable 200 miles driving at that speed, I'd be thrilled.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    richkae
    I don't understand the aversion to supercharging.
    300 miles at 55mph is 5.45 hours.
    300 miles at 75mph is 4 hours
    If you only get 200 miles of range at 75mph, your trip will still be way faster with a supercharger stop.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2015
    ratsbew
    I'm saying that certain routes don't have Superchargers if you're not following the interstates. A trip half way across the state and back (currently) would not be covered by Superchargers if you're not already along an interstate.
    �
  • Jul 23, 2015
    Model 3
    Nobody outside Tesla knows - yet. But what we know is:
    - Elon has stated that the TM3 will have at least 200 miles realistic real world range.
    - Elon has stated that to have 200 miles realistic real world range, you need 240 miles EPA range.

    So, it is reasonable to say that the base version of TM3 will have at least a 240 miles EPA range.

    Will there be an option for a bigger battery? TMS came with three battery sizes, reduced to two, and now is again 3, and is probably again reduced to two when the TM3 hits the road. TMX will have (at least) two battery options. So it is reasonable to guess that the TM3 also will get at least two battery options.

    So, if the TM3 gets two battery-sizes, what range will the bigger battery get? My guess is that the gap will be to small if it was only 265 miles EPA like the original TMS. My guess is about 280 miles EPA for the RWD (if you get RWD with the bigger battery), some more with the dual motor. And with 280 miles EPA range, 300 miles @ 55mph would be no problem in normal weather/temperatures, but maybe a stretch in winter or in really hot summer or during rain/heavy headwind.

    ... but on the other hand, if they can make it 300+ miles EPA range, they will have crossed a psychological boundary that will be important for many to overcome, and will definitely help to convince a number of potential customers. So, if they are at all able to cross that boundary without to many compromises I'm sure they will.
    �
  • Jul 23, 2015
    WarpedOne
    Lets see .. today we have 70/90 (I'm ignoring 85 as it is on its way out).
    In two years there are supposed to be two ~5% increments. First 75 / 95 and then 80 / 100 for MS and MX.
    M3 will have shorter wheelbase, so the battery will need to by physically shorter and somewhat narrower, say 10% less volume and hence capacity.
    That results in 70kWh base option that would easily do 240EPA and 90kWh option that will do 300EPA miles.

    So, my bet is M3 will come with 70 and 90 batteries that will be 2 step improvement of today MS battery.
    �
  • Jul 23, 2015
    Model 3
    Well, the car should be 20% smaller. That does not say that the battery has to be 20% smaller, but I think that a 10% smaller battery will be a bit optimistic.



    TMS 70 does 240 EPA miles. A TM3 will do a lot more on that capacity. My guess is still on a 50-55kWh battery in the base configuration for the 240EPA range. Then a 65-70kWh would be close to 300 miles EPA range.
    �
  • Jul 23, 2015
    ScepticMatt
    1) Elon Musk said that Model 3 will have a "20% smaller pack". Whether than means 20% lower cell capacity (48 kWh) or it allows for some packaging and chemistry improvements who knows.

    2) Musk specified "200 usable mile range minimum". In any case, 48-50 kWh is enough for 200 mile EPA range, due to lower weight, less drag area and more efficient motor (P85D front motor)

    3) A 70 kWh option would have similar range or more than a current 85 kWh Model S. So I think that it would make sense to have an option in that range (Assuming 50 kWh base model)

    Source: Elon Musk battery Model E 80 percent size - YouTube
    �
  • Jul 23, 2015
    Model 3
    Correct. But he has later stated that to get this 200 usable/realistic/real world miles, you need about 240 miles EPA range.
    �
  • Jul 23, 2015
    nikolai
    It just occurred to me that would result in a battery line up of 50, 70 and 90kWh. I realize that my desire to look for patterns in numbers has left me biased. :)
    �
  • Jul 23, 2015
    wallet.dat
    During the P90D announcement a few days ago, didn't he also say they'll be able to improve battery capacity by ~10% every 2-3 years. So by the time the Model E comes out they'll be on the next battery improvement increment. So a 50kWh base model then becomes a 55kWh base, and married to a lighter platform, they don't have to make as much power to achieve target performance levels, so they can wire more cells in parallel for longer range. I'd say that 250 real world miles is certainly feasible. 300 might be a bit optimistic though, for now at least.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2015
    spottyq
    Or it stays 50kWh and costs less to Tesla, which enables them to get to their $35k target.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2015
    ScepticMatt
    Model 3 will have a 20% energy density improvement according to JB straubel at Intersolar. [Indirect source]
    If that means 60 kWh base, That would give the Model 3 a 250ish mile range.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2015
    MassModel3
    To reach the initial pricing requirements, the base model will likely get around 200 miles when driving at 60 or 65 for the EPA rating. Driving at 55 will stretch that a small amount, but that's about it.

    There is a good chance that a large enough battery could be an option when the Model 3 is first released, but if not it will simply happen as technology improves. Elon recently said battery technology is improving at roughly 5% per year, so it'll get to that 300 mile mark eventually, but I personally think we'll see it when the Model 3 is first released and I think we'll see 400 miles in 4 or 5 years.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2015
    BrianC
    Everyone seems to be forgetting the M3 is going to be a smaller car that will take less energy to get/keep moving. I could see a 60pack being the MAX.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2015
    Candleflame
    That's exactly the problem. For "keeping moving" the weight of the car doesn't really matter all that much. For City stop and go traffic the weight will make a big difference in energy consumption but for crusing speed (where the range really matters for long range travel) the energy savings from a lighter car will be neglible. A reason why the Model S can get away with being so heavy.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2015
    ryanjm
    Given how quickly Tesla has been progressing, plus Gigafactory, plus Elon's comments on battery advancements and minimum Angie bar for the base Model 3, I suspect a 220-240 mile EPA base model, but a 280-300 mile option as well.

    Simultaneously, I expect a 400-mile option to be made available on Model S so as to keep the S as the more obviously "premium" model.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2015
    EVNow
    I think EPA rating will be around 4 m/kWh of useable battery capacity - considering all the smaller EVs on the road today (Leaf is 3.8). So, I'd expect 70 kWh (65 useable ?) to give about 260 miles. I expect the base to be around 60 kWh (55 useable) - so that EPA rating is nicely above 200 miles.

    Tesla my be able to get better m/kWh by compromising on lot of other things - but my guess is they'd rather put a bit more battery than compromise on looks or interior space or performance.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2015
    ScepticMatt
    20% smaller means about a 20% efficiency improvement (weight/drag area) which I already took into account.
    I doubt that the Model 3 is going to be more efficient than a Leaf - it's supposed to be bigger and have higher performance as you say.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2015
    Model 3
    ... and newer, with newer/better inverters/motors etc. - and better aerodynamic. Yes, I do guess that it will be more efficient then the Leaf we know today.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2015
    Matteo
    Hi,

    On this page you can find drag coefficient numbers for many cars. Model S is 0.24. Nissan Leaf is 0.28. Drag coefficient means the percentage of the frontal area that counts as a drag area. For Model S, only 24% of the frontal area counts (frontal area = the area of the silhouette of the car when looking from the front). This is a great success rate. I would imagine they would repeat exactly the same rate. Therefore even if frontal area of the Model 3 was exactly the same as Leaf, the drag area (drag area = drag coefficient * frontal area) would be less. In other words, yes Model 3 will have less air drag than Leaf.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2015
    muleferg
  • Jul 25, 2015
    tga
  • Jul 25, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    It's 544km (338 miles) on the Japanese cycle (Leaf currently gets 228km / 142 miles), which translates to 200 miles of EPA range (given 84 miles EPA for current Leaf). Given the round number of 200 EPA miles, I suspect this is just a conceptual model (shows what their goal is).
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    MitchJi
    . That's incorrect. There's more energy per cell, but if you do the math the fact that less cells fit in the same area offsets the larger cell size.

    OP: M3 is supposed to require 20% smaller batteries and with the GF they're going to be at least 30% cheaper, plus any cost reductions due to cell chemistry improvements. So One way to take advantage of that combination of factors is to produce cars with about 200 miles of range for as low a price as possible. But they could also choose to produce a M3 with 300-400 miles of range for a relatively affordable price.

    My dream car is a M3 PL100D (performance ludicrous 100 kW dual motor) with about 400 miles of range. Maybe we should make a poll or create a petition.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    Matteo
    MitchJi,
    I agree with you but it is unclear what you said. It looks as if you are objecting to 20700 form factor. I want to clarify:

    That's correct. It might be 20700 or 20720, somewhere around that size. (18650= 18mm x 65mm, 20700= 20mm x 70mm)

    That's not the case. Changing cell size doesn't have any affect on volumetric energy density, Wh/litre. The reason why they are changing it is because it will lower production time and costs. I'm pretty sure the production robots will make an 20700 cell in same time as an 18650 cell. But you need less 20700 cells.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    Jeff N
    Elon has specifically stated in the past that the model 3 will have a larger battery pack option but he has not said what the battery pack sizes will be.

    Model 3 Battery Size - Page 2
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    jbcarioca
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    The surface area to volume ratio of a cylinder is 2/radius + 2/height. That means for a 18650 it is 0.253 and 20700 it is 0.229 (using the nameplate numbers, a 18650 is actually 18.6 mm diameter, 65.2 height). That means assuming the same casing material thickness, the 20700 will have less casing material for a given volume. That might help gravimetric energy density somewhat. But you are right that it shouldn't help volumetric energy density much.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    EVNow
    Smaller 3 will not have the same CD. If it did the head space would be unacceptable. As I wrote it is possible to make 3 more efficient but not without any compromises.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    nleggatt
    Here's my thoughts... Don't hit me if you disagree lol:

    1. By the time 3 arrives, the 85 pack will be able to fit in the space of the threes battery space

    2.the car inherently is lighter (battery compaction and smaller car etc) yes COD is higher

    3.and here's my big issue: supercharging! There is no way tesla will launch the three with slower super charging then my current 60. This means an 85 pack will most likely be needed IF they want to charge even faster than what we have now on the 85. They need a car that makes the other companies look stupid again. 300 miles, more storage, looks cooler, seats 5, charges to 80% in 25 minutes, infrastructure is on place (less than 200miles means current sc won't be of use), and that is just the base model!

    It will happen. :) and that's how they will do 500k cars.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    Matteo
    I guess you mean it will have higher than 0.24 drag coefficient. You could be right. It might be somewhere between Model S' 0.24 and Leaf's 0.28. Currently the drag area for Model S is like this:

    Drag area = drag coefficient * frontal area
    Model S Drag area = 0.24 * 25.2 square feet = 6.048 square feet = 0.562 square metre

    Model 3 could be something like this, with slightly worse drag coefficient and a little less frontal area:
    Model 3 Drag area = 0.26 * 22.7 square feet = 5.902 square feet = 0.548 square metre

    In any case, the drag area of Model 3 should be less than Model S. The Nissan Leaf drag area is 0.725 square metre which is worse than the larger Model S and will be even worse than the Model 3.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Mercedes claims the C-Class gets 0.24, CLA gets 0.22. If Tesla takes a similar design, adds a bit more rear headroom, and take advantage of lower EV cooling requirements, maybe they can get the same 0.24 as Model S.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    tom66
    Tesla are already at <$200/kWh for industrial installation.
    If they need a 60~65kWh pack to go 300 miles at 65mph then they can do this for about $13k.
    That is a significant cost, but could be absorbed for the next tier in battery capacity.

    It is likely that Tesla will offer at least two batteries, possibly even three for the Model 3. As it is a more mass produced vehicle optionality can be expanded.

    Maybe something like 40kWh = ~180 miles, base, $30k before incentives; 50kWh = ~220 miles, $35k before incentives; 60kWh = ~270 miles, $40k before incentives.
    (mileage is a guesstimate)

    with the 40kWh being introduced about 1 year in to capture more of the Leaf / Prius upgrade market (not on launch to keep ASP higher, just like 60kWh delayed on Model S launch)
    �
  • Jul 26, 2015
    EVNow
    I don't think Tesla will offer anything less than 200 miles - because of super charger spacing realities. I think this was the reason 40 kWh S didn't offer Supercharging and was eventually dropped.

    To start with I won't be surprised if 3 comes in a single 60 kWh pack option with 220 EPA miles. More options will come later.
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    GregRF
    The problem is that those are "claims". In the Car&Driver test in the same wind tunnel they got:

    Model S .24
    Prius .26
    Volt .28
    CLA .30
    Leaf .32

    If they can hit .24 with the Model 3 that would be pretty awesome. Perhaps with better rims and mirror removal it could see better.
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    CantaMia Ron
    Why worry a bout it if you can use the super Charger's as the are 100 to 150 mile apart?
    :rolleyes:
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    S'toon
    There's not superchargers 100 to 150 miles apart everywhere.
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Car and Driver noted that the CLA tested was the US version that was not fitted with the active aero components as the European version has. Also the 0.22 is the BlueEfficiency version (regular European version they claim 0.23).
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    GregRF
    True, but a .08 spread is pretty big and I doubt the active aero contributes that much of a gain. I was mostly pointing out that any aero claims that come from the manufacturer should also be taken with a grain of salt.

    I really wish that more unbiased studies were done on drag values for cars. Its easier to find Cd numbers on bicycle frames. Would be nice to have CdA numbers on the EPA stickers right next to the MPG(e) numbers.
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    pmadflyer
    Model 3 base range is 240 EPA. Old news from Elon Musk. Why do people keep getting numbers lower than 240 EPA or 200 real world in 10 degree F winter weather on the highway, again said by Elon Musk. And I thought the price target was $100 per kWh.
    :cool: whatever, it's gonna be awesome!
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    Matteo
    Yes indeed $100 per kWh is the long term goal. In one of Tesla's conference calls an analyst asked whether Tesla will achieve 100 USD per kWh which is when electric cars reach cost parity with gas cars and Elon said yes Tesla will get there. There is an article about it here. The scenario I would imagine would be like this:

    Cell costs over time:
    Nov 2014: 221 USD/kWh source: page 16 on this PDF file
    July 2015: 205 USD/kWh: That's just my guess
    Sep 2016: Gigafactory pilot plant starts production
    30% savings: Elon said they will save 30% just from transportation costs by not moving materials and cells all around the world.
    10% savings: Tesla will switch from 18650 form factor to 20700 form factor. That means 10% taller and 10% thicker cells. That is 30% more energy per cell. Instead 7104 18650 cells they might use 4972 20700 cells. This would reduce production costs because you need less time and less energy to manufacture the same kWh
    10% savings because of economies of scale. This means they will negotiate better deals with materials suppliers because they will buy in larger quantities. Also their fixed costs like research costs become a smaller percentage.
    Total Gigafactory savings= 30+10+10= 50%

    On 24 Oct 2014 Jerome Guillen said 50% price drop in cell cost should be achievable.
    Cells prices after 50% reduction from current prices would be $103/kWh
    �
  • Jul 27, 2015
    EVNow
    Link ?
    �
  • Jul 28, 2015
    Red Sage
    He said the Generation III car would be 20% smaller than Model S. Since he had already said it would be competing against the BMW 3-Series, I believe he was speaking of its weight. Because 80% of the base Model S weight at the time happened to fall right in the middle of weights for 3-Series vehicle configurations, RWD and XDrive.

    He was repeatedly misquoted in the press as saying the battery pack would therefore be 48 kWh, or 80% of a 60 kWh capacity. I believe he was speaking instead of the physical size of the battery pack in Generation III, not the capacity. Each Generation of Tesla Motors vehicles has had a greater range than the one before. I expect that trend to continue with Model ?. It would not be a bad thing for the base Model ? to have a range equivalent to or longer than the top-of-the-line Model S.

    50 kWh is absolutely too little capacity to achieve a "200 mile usable range minimum" -- while still meeting performance targets. If you presume that some capacity is reserved for battery protection, you may have only 42 kWh to 45 kWh to work with. So the car may have to operate at an average of 210 Wh per mile or less just to reach 200 miles. It could be as low as 175 Wh per mile if you wanted to make sure it could go 240 miles. I think it best to plan for a possible 225-to-250 miles at 270-300 Wh per mile, and then accept any improvement in efficiency you get otherwise.
    �
  • Jul 30, 2015
    Candleflame
    200 miles at 80mph is the bare minimum imho.
    �
  • Jul 31, 2015
    EVNow
    at 0 Deg F in 10" of snow ?

    My theory is - 3 hours of freeway travel + adequate charging will end the ICEage.
    �
  • Aug 1, 2015
    Red Sage
    If 80 MPH is around 375 Wh per mile, then 200 miles of driving at that rate would consume 75,000 Wh, or 75 kWh of energy. If you presume that is a full battery pack, and that there is perhaps a 10% anti-brick protection... That would require an 83.333~ kWh battery pack. If you instead presume that is with a 20% buffer remaining after charging to 90%, then the full capacity would be... Something like a 119 kWh battery pack.

    My first car was rated at an EPA 28 MPG. In actuality, it got around 32 MPG when filled with Premium fuel. Due to its efficiency and sizable gas tank, I could set the cruise control at 85 MPH, drive around 530-to-540 miles and still have 1-1/2 gallons of fuel left. No other car I've owned, or driven regularly, had such range. It would be spectacular to have such range in an EV on the highway.

    But again, looking at the reality of how much energy that would be expended, and the state of battery technology for the near future, that is truly an unreasonable short term goal. Thus, I have no problem with Tesla Motors looking to satisfy their range goals under EPA ratings until that time comes. As many have said already, until you live the life of an EV on the road, you just don't know what you don't know. And everyone that says it isn't practical, it can't be done, that it's just too slow, and far too inconvenient, is ignoring all the facts that are before them. Unless they are simply using lowest common denominator preventive social maintenance to presume that people simply won't be able to manage the mental gymnastics of planning a road trip because they are just that dumb and will get themselves stranded.

    Sure. There are plenty of dumb people. But I think that all it takes is a bit of education. Changing a few bad habits. And experiencing EVs on a daily basis. So that with practice, almost anyone with opposable thumbs and an IQ that is an order of magnitude above their sneaker size will be just fine.
    �
  • Aug 1, 2015
    Candleflame

    At 90mph on a european motorway?

    My theory is - Tesla will make sure europeans will get some usuable range too. If the speed limit is 55mph then you might as well take the bus...:-(

    - - - Updated - - -

    afaik the S85 can just about pull the 200 miles off at 80mph with a 100% charge.
    �
  • Aug 1, 2015
    EVNow
    I'm not too familiar with driving habits in Europe. My theory is for the US - since most people drive around 3 hours before taking a break, that is the range people will be comfortable with (I guess + some buffer). Let us say 75 mph - so that would be about 100kWh or so.

    No, we won't get that now with 3 - but if we want to break into ICE market share in a big way, that is what is needed.

    The other big part is adequate charging - which to me means everywhere you may expect people to drive in large numbers - so along all freeways and state highways - 50 or 100 miles apart.
    �
  • Aug 1, 2015
    pmadflyer
  • Aug 2, 2015
    Candleflame

    I agree on the 3 hours, but even in the UK where the speed limits are one of the lowest in europe at 70mph, noone drives 70. More like 80 and sometimes 90. In France, spain, Netherlands, Italy this is much higher, which is why I picked 85mph. 85mph x 3hours is 255 miles. So by saying minimum range of 200 miles at normal european cruising speed, I'm not asking for the world. :frown:

    200 miles at 3 hours would be 66mph which is just too slow for europe. You will hold the traffic up behind you lol
    �
  • Aug 2, 2015
    ratsbew
    We're talking about highway mileage at high speeds here. In order to even have a chance at hitting 3 hours endurance at 70-80mph (with a reasonably small battery) it will be absolutely critical for Model 3 to have incredible aerodynamics. Like 0.20 Cd. As a pilot and general nerd, just the thought of having such a slippery car makes me want it that much more.

    I'm hoping that there is a special "aero" model of the Model 3 that makes style compromises for ultimate aerodynamics and range. I'll take wheel fairings and weird hubcaps if it means super low energy consumption.
    �
  • Aug 2, 2015
    Jeff N
    He also did not make a specific commitment to the Model 3 EV range beyond the "passing grade" of 200 miles. He said 250-300 or perhaps 250-350 were ideal and beyond that the value of larger range became less important. What he said would be entirely consistent with a default Model 3 range of 220 miles and an optional pack upgrade that takes it to ~300 miles.
    �
  • Aug 2, 2015
    Candleflame
    I got no idea why the model S doesnt come with hubcaps without holes as standard. -6% energyconsumption is insane for a simple modification like this.
    Saying that though, I would trade range for faster supercharging.
    �
  • Aug 2, 2015
    pmadflyer
    Correct, but I could have sworn he gave a specific example and epa minimum range, in addition to the examples of optimal conditions in response to the question I highlighted.
    It used to come with aero wheels as an option but they were unpopular and discontinued. Also, usually charge rate and range can be increased with a larger total capacity. But, you can also have a larger capacity battery that charges slower or the opposite.
    �
  • Aug 3, 2015
    EVNow
    Are you talking about this ?

    Model 3 Range per 3/19/15 Press Statements

    You can interpret the first statement as EPA 200 miles range. Second as saying it should really be 240. But, you can't take this as Musk saying Model 3 will have 240 EPA miles range.

    I think the EPA range will be "safely" above 200 - around 220 perhaps. If they aim for just above 200 - say 205, some unforeseen circumstance that increases weight or adds to CD can make it come below 200. That is why I think they will aim for 210 or 220 - and may get a little above or below that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    My statement about 3 hours of freeway driving was to break into the ICE market in a big way. That won't happen with Model 3. Afterall you need other things too like lower than $35k price (around $20k in US) and ubiquitous charging infrastructure which makes any kind of planning unnecessary when driving on any freeway or highway. I think those are 10 years or so out. This won't happen at one go - but in stages.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I should have asked earlier - bare minimum for what ?

    Is that for you to buy or for 10% of people you know to buy or for Tesla to sell 500k cars annually or ... ?

    Because, that is not going to happen with base model 3.
    �
  • Aug 3, 2015
    pmadflyer
    The entire point of the model 3 is to break into the ICE market. That is the only reason Tesla Motors exists. The model 3 will be superior to any comparable ICE car, or Tesla will have failed. Go read the secret mission again if you have any complaints with that.

    Now on range, no one can give a number yet, but 250 is the lower target.
    �
  • Aug 3, 2015
    ratsbew

    Speed becomes less of a negative factor as your drag coefficient gets better and better. If Model 3 can hit an extremely slippery 0.20 Cd then 200 miles at 80 might be possible. Hopefully side mirrors are no longer a legal requirement by then.
    �
  • Aug 3, 2015
    EVNow
    The compromises they'd need to make that cd will turn off more people than they can gain because of extra miles. 3 will be a conventional looking vehicle with a decent cd, large battery to get 200 miles. Expecting anything else is likely to result in disappointment.
    �
  • Aug 3, 2015
    Matteo
    Hi. I created a spreadsheet for range calculations. It already has all Model S and Model X versions. I can add a few fictional Model 3 configurations and show the results here. If anybody is interested, I need the following data. If you give me those numbers, I can show you range side by side with S90D or S100D if you want.

    1. Battery size (make up any number)
    2. Weight of car (to give you an idea, S60= 1961kg, S70D= 2090kg, S85D=2188kg)
    3. Frontal cross section area (Model S is 2.34 square metres. Model 3 will be less. BMW 3 series is 2.16 square metres. The image below explains the area.)
    4. Drag Coefficient (you can check this page Automobile drag coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
    5. Speed (any speed you would like to see range at)


    Model%u00252520S%u00252520Silhouette.png
    �
  • Aug 3, 2015
    ratsbew
    1. 60kWh
    2. 1900kg
    3. 2.05
    4. 0.22
    5. 80mph
    �
  • Aug 3, 2015
    Matteo
  • Aug 3, 2015
    ratsbew
    Not bad for 80mph!
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Candleflame
    I seem to get much lower range for all cars on that spreadsheet: for the model 3 29791 watth with 56259watts capacity is 1.88845624517 hours of driving at 80mph which is a range of only 151miles. (1.88 x 80). ?_?
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Matteo
    Hi Candleflame,
    The spreadsheet ("Range Calculator" page) is a bit messy. It calculates consumption for 100 miles driving. Then calculates maximum range. I added a little more info to clarify.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Candleflame
    Ah I see. Well I'd be fairly happy with a range of 189 miles at 80mph...
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Model 3
    That's heavy for a 20% smaller car. And an optimistic CD.

    Let's try:
    1. 60kWh
    2. 1750kg
    3. 2.05
    4. 0.24
    5. 80mph (to compare) and 80km/t
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    gregincal
    Well of course. The roadster and Model S were intended to break into the ICE market as well, and did. However, he said break into the ICE market in a significant way, which means selling millions of cars per year just like the ICE manufacturers. The Model 3 isn't the final Tesla car that accomplishes everything, just another stepping stone.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Matteo
    Hi. I added your version to the list. Your username would be confusing, so I named it Norway's Model 3. To see it, click here and switch to page "Range Calculator". Your version has more range than Ratsbew's at lower speeds but less range at higher speeds. The rolling resistance and air resistance consumption numbers per 100 mi, explain this.

    You can change speed to anything you want. So, we don't need speed anymore. Only these 4 are needed:

    1. Battery size (make up any number)
    2. Weight of car (to give you an idea, S60= 1961kg, S70D= 2090kg, S85D=2188kg)
    3. Frontal cross section area (Model S is 2.34 square metres. Model 3 will be less. BMW 3 series is 2.16 square metres. The image below explains the area.)
    4. Drag Coefficient (you can check this page Automobile drag coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    wallet.dat
    If we're trying to figure out estimated range based on a steady 80mph speed, weight shouldn't factor into it very much (if at all), unless you're traveling uphill or something.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Model 3
    Thank you :)

    As expected, but the differences was even smaller then I expected. But this reconfirm that the base TM3 will not need a 60kWh battery to get an EPA range of about 240 miles, witch is what I expect is the target for Tesla. Is it to much to ask to make it 55kWh/1700kg?
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Matteo
    That would have been true if the tires didn't touch the road. The weight of the car presses the car down to the road. The tires grip the road. This is something you want because otherwise you couldn't control the car. For example trains have very little rolling friction because they are on rails and don't need to grip. But if you put a train on a road, it would be like sliding on ice because it wouldn't grip.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No problem at all. I enjoy playing around with this. At 61.7 mph range is same as rated range. So you can use that as a guide.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Model 3
    Thanks again :)

    In that case it seems like 55kWh is a bit low again.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    He's not saying there is zero contribution, but that it is not that significant anymore. From the Roadster efficiency excel file, rolling resistance makes up 16% of overall energy consumption at 80mph, while the break even point between aero and rolling resistance is somewhere around 42-44mph.
    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15550-Roadster-Efficiency-and-Range-Excel-File

    For example for a 1750kg vs 1900kg, 8.6% more. Tesla's blog says there is a 1% increase in rolling resistance for a 1% increase in weight. That means the overall impact on range at 80mph is 8.6%*16% = 1.4% for that weight increase.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Matteo
    Let me show you my calculation with this data:
    Weight= 1750 kg
    Gravity= 9.81 m/s^2
    Road friction coefficient for Model 3= 0.0153
    constants to convert mph to m/s= 0.44704
    air density= 1.2 kg/m^3 at sea level
    frontal area=2.05 m^2
    drag coefficient= 0.24
    speed= 80mph
    ^2 means squared

    Rolling Resistance Consumption = 1750 kg * 9.81 * 0.0153 * 0.447040 = 117.4 Wh/mi
    Air Resistance Consumption = 0.44704*0.5*1.2*0.24*2.05*(80*0.44704)^2= 168.8 Wh/mi
    Total consumption= 286.2 Wh/mi

    Rolling Resistance Consumption is 117.4/286.2= 41.02% of total consumption. Rolling resistance consumption is independent of speed. It is the same at 1 mph or 100 mph. I will add more data.

    There is a graph at the end of this page that shows how rolling resistance is the same at any speed. But I will add the formulas shortly.
    http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/Model-S-range-Tables.pdf
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Maybe you should do a calculation for the Roadster using Tesla's data file, to see if it matches up, to check on your assumptions:
    http://teslaflux.com/Efficiency.xls

    This is from their blog entry from December 2008, so use the data on the 2008 Roadster (or early 2009 if 2008 can't be found):
    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-efficiency-and-range

    Unfortunately they didn't have an excel file for the Model S, but they did post a chart on Wh/mi vs Roadster:
    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range

    They say 400Wh/mi at 80mph for the Model S, 361Wh/mi at 80mph for Roadster.

    Edit: I used your rolling resistance calculation, plugged in 1220 kg (2690lbs) for Roadster weight and got 81.9 Wh/mi. Tesla's chart for the Roadster only says 57.8 Wh/mi.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Matteo
    I had a look at JB's excel file. It is different than what I use. It divides consumption into more categories and his air resistance is less than mine, but at the end the totals are similar. The formulas I use are well known physics equations. One of them is this one:

    Drag force = 1/2 * air density * speed ^2 * drag-coefficient * frontal area
    Source: Drag coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    SjWadWS.gif


    For Roadster the data and the calculation would be like this:
    Weight= 1335kg car + 82kg driver = 1417kg (82kg driver is from JB's blog here where he attached the excel file. Also source for car=1335kg)
    Gravity= 9.81 m/s^2
    Road friction coefficient for Roadster= 0.0153
    constants to convert mph to m/s= 0.44704
    air density= 1.2 kg/m^3 at sea level
    frontal area= 2.086 m^2 source
    drag coefficient= 0.35 source
    speed= 80mph

    Rolling Resistance Consumption = 1417 kg * 9.81 * 0.0153 * 0.447040 = 95.08 Wh/mi
    Air Resistance Consumption = 0.44704*0.5*1.2*0.35*2.086*(80*0.44704)^2= 250.47 Wh/mi
    Total: 345.55 Wh. JB's number is 361 Wh. It is a little different. He uses a different method. I'm sure for the Roadster his version is more accurate.

    wallet said "weight shouldn't factor into it very much (if at all)". His comment is more accurate for the Roadster. Only 95 Wh/mi of 345 is from rolling resistance according to the same formula I use for Model S. However this is because the Roadster has a much worse 0.35 air drag coefficient because all the air intakes. Therefore I don't see any inconsistency here. For more information about Rolling Resistance Consumption, there is a simple website here. There are lots of other sources. Just search on Google.

    I think the accuracy of these formulas is good and it is easy to test. I have now re-enabled the consumption calculator between superchargers. If somebody drives from one supercharger to another in the USA, they can test the accuracy. It integrates elevation and climate control. The page name is "Consumption Calculator". The file is here. I think now we can go back to Model 3 speculation.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Matteo
    Model 3 & ratsbew and other Model 3 fans,
    You can now enter all Model 3 numbers on the sheet and see the range calculation. Open the file here and switch to page "Range Calculator". Green cells are editable.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    EVNow
    Cool.

    Using realistic figures - Frontal Area same as BMW 3 (2.16), CD of 0.26, 60 kWh, 1750 lb @ 60 mph I get 229 miles. @ 70 mph I get 196 miles.
    �
  • Aug 4, 2015
    Matteo
    I have now clarified that weight is in kg. This is weight data for Model S from wikipedia:

    1,961 kg (4,323 lb) (S60)
    2,085 kg (4,597 lb) (S60D)
    2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (S70D)
    2,108 kg (4,647 lb) (S85)
    2,188 kg (4,824 lb) (S85D)
    2,239 kg (4,936 lb) (P85D)

    Model S 60 is 1961 kg with 60 kWh pack. Model 3 with 60 kWh pack should be less. How much less? You will decide on that. 10% less is 1765kg, 15% less is 1667kg, 20%less is 1569kg. Weight estimations so far are too pessimistic.

    Here is my guess:

    Base model, Model 3:
    battery: 60 kWh
    frontal area: 2.16 m^2
    Drag Coefficient: 0.26
    Weight of car (kg): 1650 kg
    EPA rating: 225 mi

    Long range version Model 3:
    battery: 80 kWh
    frontal area: 2.16 m^2
    Drag Coefficient: 0.26
    Weight of car (kg): 1790 kg
    EPA rating: 289 mi
    �
  • Aug 5, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    By using a higher weight number you get an even bigger discrepancy for rolling resistance. Again, I used the 2690lb number which was the quoted number for a 2008-2009 Roadster; keep in mind that JB's blog article came out in 2008 so you can't use 2015 numbers.

    In case it is not clear, JB's excel file has all the categories listed and the blog explains each of them. tire = rolling resistance, aero = air resistance, ancillary = accessory load, drivetrain = battery/inverter/motor conversion losses. All I'm saying is given the huge discrepancy between the tire and aero numbers JB is pointing out, you may well want to check the different constants you are using to make sure they are correct.
    �
  • Aug 5, 2015
    Matteo
    The accuracy of this spreadsheet was tested with lots of (over 50) actual trip data. The accuracy is very good. There is no error. If you don't believe me you can test it yourself the next time you drive from one supercharger to another. Open the file here, switch to page "Consumption Calculator", select the two superchargers. It will tell you how much kWh energy you will consume, what your Wh/mi number will be and how many rated miles you will consume. The calculations done here are more detailed than EVtripplanner.
    �
  • Aug 5, 2015
    Model 3
    Thank you once more :)

    Ps: would not TM3 come with smaller wheels then 19"?
    �
  • Aug 5, 2015
    ryanjm
    I'm purely guessing, of course, but I'm expecting 17" wheels on the base models, and an optional 19".
    �
  • Aug 6, 2015
    WarpedOne
    One thing is that TM3 will be relatively heavy and will need a bit bigger contact patch not to destroy tires prematurely.
    One way of increasing contact patch is by increasing width of the tire, the other is by increasing total wheel diameter.
    First way also increases aero-drag while the second does not. I'd guess TM3 will have 18" base setup, with 225/55 tires.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    Turmania
    Well the way I see it is that, currently a range upgrade of 70Kwh battery is offered to Roadster. I'm pretty sure Model 3 would easily fit that battery pack if not even more. Considering the car is at least 3 years away from production, the battery pack size and storage density can be improved till the release date. so 300+ mile is a possibility. But do not expect the base edition to have it. The only question mark for me would be, if Tesla would want such a range on model 3 to compete with Model S sales.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    Kevin Harney
    I am not sure why this agrument keeps coming up.... Why does the Model S need to be superior in every way to the Model 3 ? They are completely different cars with different purposes. Is the BMW 3/4 Series slower the the 5 or 7 ? Different cars for different purposes with different specs.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I think it comes from the German automakers limiting their lower end models. For example M5 tends to be faster than the M3 and E63 faster than C63. Tesla however, doesn't necessarily have to follow that convention.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    Kevin Harney
    Really BMW says M3 is 0-60 in 3.9 and the M5 is 4.2 at least in the USA

    M6 is 4.1 sec
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    MassModel3
    Absolutely they would.

    The Model 3 and Model S are, and forever will be, two very different classes of vehicle. They're not going to cripple the 3 just to make sure that the S version of everything is always better. The Roadster, the S, and the X were/are all meant to be money makers designed to finance the 3. The 3 is the original goal and it won't be held back by Tesla for fear of being as good as, or better than, the S in range (or anything else).
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I believe that may be do with the generation discrepancy. The F10 M5 is quoted officially at 4.2 (Motor Trend got 3.7) and I believe the E90 M3 is quoted at at 4.7 (Motor Trend got 4.2 for coupe). The F80 M3 is quoted at 3.9 /4.1 (Motor Trend got 3.8), but I believe the F10 numbers are due for an update (2017 m5 is being planned).
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    ProphetM
    The Model S is not static. I fully expect that they will continue to work battery advances into the S when possible. By the time the 3 comes out, the S might have a 100 or 110 Kwh pack.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    Kevin Harney
    Why are you comparing the current M5 with the past M3 ? Compare current to current.

    - - - Updated - - -

    See what BMW says here...

    M3 stats.JPG
    and here...
    M5 stats.JPG
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    They don't overlap exactly. F10 M5 was a 2012 model year, F80 M3 was a 2015 model year. M5 will have an update for calendar year 2017. And from the Motor Trend tests, it appears the F10 is still slightly faster.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    Kevin Harney
    My point is .... Why does a Luxury Sedan need to be faster than a Sports car? More features perhaps but why does it need to be faster ?
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Price/value perception I think, esp. when it's sedan vs sedan. There's also the halo car argument. However, personally I don't think Tesla will follow that convention. They will just do whatever is practical. If the Model 3 can fit the same size battery/motors as the Model S, I don't think Tesla will hesitate for a second to go ahead and do that rather than try to maintain some kind exclusivity for the Model S.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2015
    Twiglett
    definitely do not agree that Tesla would deliberately make the Model 3 a lesser car.
    The Model S exists to allow the 3 to be made, not the other way around. Just like the Roadster was created to let the Model S exist.
    I'm pretty sure the Model S is a better car than the Roadster in almost every way. That's why Tesla are such a different company.
    I fully expect the Model 3 to be a better car than the Model S.
    The only limitation will come from economics, not falsely separating ranges.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2015
    Model 3

    Ok, so lets assume that TM3 will get a range of 300 miles. Then they make a new battery for the TMS/X generation with the same cells that is used in TM3. What range will that give to the TMS? My guess is about 350++ miles....
    �
  • Sep 16, 2015
    Turmania
    Personally I do hope TM3 goes over and beyond 300 miles. At least as an option to have.

    Correct me If I'm wrong, Tesla wanted to use the name 'E' initially. Looking at the namimg scheme of Tesla on Model S. It's same class as Mercedes S. or BMW 7 series. if e was suppose to be the same as Mercedes E class then We are looking at BMW 5 series. not 3 Series. Whilst many here are looking for a BMW 3 series rival or mercedes C series in that aspect. I do hope that actually TM3 is more direct competition to 5 series or E series.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2015
    Model 3
    I don't think you should put anything into any similarity between the naming scheme of Tesla and other car-makers. Personally I think that "Model S" got the name just because they did not dear to try "Model T" - so they got one ahead of the Model T :)

    The "Model E" was originally an joke: having a lineup of:
    Model S
    Model E
    Model X - and probably later (the Gen-III CUV?):
    Model Y (yes, they have claimed the trademark "Model Y")

    When Ford denied them the right to the Model E, it was Model 3 - as it is read as an E in L33T-speak. And with the emblem you see in my picture as a symbol of 3 - witch also can be seen as an E (see the TESLA logo :p ). So nothing to do with the S/C/E class or 3/5 series.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2015
    Kevin Harney
    This and the fact that TM has stated emphatically that Model 3 will be a direct competitor to the BMW 3/4 series, Audi A3/A4 and the Mercedes C class.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2015
    Lonnie123
    I think it was:

    Model S = Sedan

    Model X = Crossover ("X-over")

    Model E = Economy vehicle, but Ford already had "Model E" trademarked (Elon even joked at the time that they didnt like sex because they wouldnt let him use it) so they went with 3 because its their 3rd productino vehicle.
    �
  • Sep 18, 2015
    Red Sage
    These days I'm thinking the 'Y' for 'YANKEE' is going to be the Tesla Motors pickup truck!

    The Model ? will be multiple configurations, just as is the case with the 3-Series. So: Sedan & Crossover to start, with Wagon, Coupe, & Cabriolet following in subsequent years.

    As for range... Some haven't noticed, but Elon has already upped the range for the Model ?. He wants it to have a 200+ mile 'real world' range, which for most works out to ~240 miles EPA rated range. That falls in line with my prior prediction that the base Model ? would have a 60 kWh battery pack allowing for 250 miles EPA range. That will be the baseline minimum for just about any Tesla Motors product from now on, I think.

    So, yes... For a given capacity, the Model ? will always have a greater range than a Model S. Thus, if a 90 kWh battery pack can get the Model S to 270 miles, don't be surprised if a Model ? with that same capacity reaches 324 miles or so as an EPA rating. But yes, the highest capacity battery packs will likely debut with Generation II vehicles, Model S and Model X, for some time. You won't have to worry about this at all.

    Tesla Motors will not 'gimp' the Model ? to 'protect' sales of Model S. The Model S is already at around 50,000 units per year. The Model ? is bound for ten times that quantity.

    As to the BMW lineup comparison... Before they started turbocharging everything, BMW used the exact same engines across 3-Series, 5-Series, and 7-Series. Result? The smaller, lighter 3-Series cars were quicker 0-60, 1/4 mile, through the slalom... No problem. BMW chose to limit the 3-Series to 130 MPH, and let the others go to 155 MPH. Only the 'M' varieties of the 3-Series were allowed to catch up to their bigger siblings at high speed.

    That strategy has worked well for BMW for a very long time. They've only changed somewhat in recent years because of emissions and fuel economy regulations. Tesla Motors will employ strategies that work, and modify them as needed for their own product line.
    �
  • Sep 18, 2015
    Turmania
    As I said before, I do hope they make 300+ model. but if they do it will venture into the base model s price point.
    �
  • Oct 22, 2015
    yobigd20
  • Oct 22, 2015
    vinnie97
    So do I. 400 would give it ICE equivalence.
    �
  • Oct 22, 2015
    bigbear
  • Oct 22, 2015
    MassModel3
    Via Google Translate:

    SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 22 evening news, Tesla Motors (Tesla Motors) CEO Elon - Musk (Elon Musk) tonight at the School of Economics and Management at Tsinghua University organized the dialogue, said that Tesla will China produced within two years of the company's production models Model 3.

    In the teacher-student interaction with Tsinghua University, the Musk asked Tesla will play what role in the electric vehicle market in China. He explained that the company will set up factories in China within the next two years, the production of the company's upcoming production electric car Model 3.

    Musk did not disclose the partners, establish specific time information, plant location. Tesla, a spokesman told Sina science and technology, the preparatory work in Chinese factories are still ongoing, so the inconvenience to disclose specific information. However, the spokesman said that Tesla's China plant will use the same technology as the US factory, so the selection of partners that there would be high demand.

    March this year, after the end of Musk BFA told Xinhua News Agency in an interview, had expressed the hope that the establishment of local production and design base in China. In April this year, general manager of China ??? Tesla also told the media that the 2017 Model 3 is expected to be welcomed by the general public in China, "the time may be more suited to our car in the local production."

    Use lower prices to enter the Chinese market is one of the main factors to consider Tesla mass production in China. Musk introduction, Model 3 would be half the price of Model S in Chinese mass production, it is possible to reduce import taxes and purchase cost of the vehicle to help the car market in China reduced by one third the price.

    Model 3 is Tesla plans to launch mass production of electric vehicles. There are public information, Model 3 and Model S is similar appearance, the body is reduced by 20%. Earlier Musk has said the car will be priced at $ 35,000 (about 220,000 yuan), will be delivered in 2017. (Fangze)
    �
  • Oct 22, 2015
    nwdiver
    This temptation to pound an EV into an ICE shaped hole is misplaced. An ICE with ~400 miles of range provides a regular benefit through fewer trips to the gas station. With an EV this becomes largely irrelevant. I can count on 1 hand the number of times range >300 miles would have been useful in the last 3 years and >75k miles of driving. As L3 and L2 chargers become more ubiquitous I expect that tally to fall to ~0 within 3 years.

    So the question becomes... how much is something worth that will only provide a slight benefit maybe once or twice a year? In terms of pure math you would need ~35kWh to get an extra 100 miles of range. Even optimistic projections put the cost of 35kWh >$3500. Realistically you would save maybe a few hours of charging per year.


    It will be interesting to see at what point the interest in increased range begins to drop. Although human behavior is very difficult to predict; I met a P85 owner that always charged to 100% (until Tesla called and told him to stop) even though he had no intention of ever driving >20 miles from home. :confused:
    �
  • Oct 22, 2015
    vinnie97
    That is true (charging at home changes the equation entirely), but it's still a psychological barrier that would serve to silence even more critics. The last nut to crack is quicker charging times of course.
    �
  • Oct 22, 2015
    nwdiver
    The emphasis needs to placed on practicality. When I get the typical (When I can drive ~400 miles and fill-up in 5 minutes I'll consider an EV) retort... my response isn't 'EVs will get there'... it's 'Why?'; There is very very little practical benefit to either of those things. Driving ~300 miles let alone ~400 miles without stopping is torture and when I do stop it's for ~30 minutes, not 5.

    200-300 miles of range appears to be the 'sweet spot'. There is rapidly diminishing benefit >300 miles and decreasing practicality <200 miles.

    That psychological barrier needs to be broken down... not appeased :wink:
    �
  • Oct 22, 2015
    Mad Hungarian
    In warmer climates that represent most markets I would totally agree with this statement.
    But in Canada, from what I've been reading around here, the winter months can kill range by up to 50% or more when you start making frequent short trips with lots of cold starts and re-heats/defrosts. Even just straight highway driving at 0F / -20C would appear to kill range by 20% - 30%. Add a heavy right foot (which is part of the fun of this car, no?) and I can easily see wanting a 300 - 400 mile "optimal" range so that I can still get 150 - 200 miles in when conditions are bad and I REALLY don't want to have to sweat making the next charger. I'm hoping there's going to be a serious big battery option for this reason.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)