Thứ Hai, 26 tháng 12, 2016

Sub 3 seconds for Model 3 DL part 1

  • Aug 24, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    I have done some back of brain calculations & I am very confident the DL version will go under 3 seconds 0-100kmh (& therefore well under for 0-60mph)

    Anyone wanna see my basic calculations?

    I'll cop the ridicule if I seriously cocked up
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    We've talked about this before, if Tesla doesn't hold back on the battery and motors then the Model 3 should be able to out accelerate the Model S since it's both lighter and more aerodynamic.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Neohippy
    I would be thrilled if it matches the MS performance. I doubt it will beat it because that would really upset the owners of the P90D and that's understandable.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    Musk has stated there will be a DL version.
    The question is the battery size.
    If not software limited, definitely will be sub 3 seconds, if not 2.5

    It won't out accelerate the MS, because when the M3 is released the MS will also benefit from the new 2170 batteries, meaning a 110-120kWh battery in 2017/18.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    So with 110-120kWh battery, MS will probably do around 2.2 seconds in real world tests.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    I don't agree with this logic. A Mercedes S500 costs more than an AMG C63, but it is slower
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    mass is mass... you can't fight physics.
    Given the same voltage, current, and motors, the Model 3 will always beat the Model S. Battery capacity has nothing to do with it as long as there's adequate cooling and they are still well below max C.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    cronosx
    not really.. maybe with 160kw, the problem is that gaining 0.1 second at the 2.5 level is 10 time more difficult that getting 1 second in the range of 6 seconds since the acceleration equation is quadratic
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    andrerodpt
    But not faster than the S65. You have to compare apples to apples.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    ecarfan
    I believe Elon said that there will be a, quote, "Performance" version of the Model 3 that will be faster than the base version. He did not say that there will be a Model 3 "D Ludicrous" which is how I interpret your "DL".

    Elon has also stated that the S and X will have unique features not available on the Model 3 because of the need to keep the two model lines separate and to justify the higher S and X price compared to the 3. At this point we don't know what those distinguishing characteristics will be.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Do you think its to justify the higher S and X price....or do you think its to keep the M3 - affordable?

    Because what I heard is that the MS and MX were a test bed for the M3 and/or MY.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    No,
    Elon Musk: "Of Course" Tesla Model 3 Will Get Ludicrous Mode
    [?IMG]
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    ecarfan
    Jeff, thanks for that correction!

    So now the question to me is, with the Model 3 PxxD Ludicrous be quicker than the Model S PxxxD Ludicrous? One might assume it would be since the 3 will be lighter, but Tesla could software limit the output to keep it slower.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    There's no way uncle Elon would allow such an atrocity! :eek:
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JohnSnowNW
    There is absolutely no reason to software limit the M3 to have less performance than the Model S. The performance version of the Model 3 will undoubtedly have similar enough profit margins to the Model S that the volume of sales should more than make up for a drop in MSPDL sales.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    WarpedOne
    Or even better - price it above MS PxxxDL?

    Model S is not sacred. If Tesla will not create a better car than S, somebody else will and eat tesla's lunch.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    techmaven
    There is a limit to the size of the battery pack in the Model 3, both on a weight basis and on a volumetric basis. As a result, I'm expecting the base battery pack to be around 50-55 kWh, and the bigger pack to be around 70 kWh.

    Right now, Ludicrous mode allows a discharge c-rate around 5.6C. Assuming that the increase in specific energy expected with a battery chemistry change in the Model 3 doesn't negatively affect the discharge c-rate (not necessarily a safe assumption), then we're looking at 5.6 * 70 = 392 kW, or 525 hp. But the battery pack likely weighs in at 390 kg, making the total weight of the car around 4,200 pounds. A P90D+L and P100D+L are around 5,000 pounds, so that's a lot of weight shaved off.

    I can definitely see under 3 seconds if these parameters hold. Maybe 2.8 or 2.9?'

    Note that for c-rate discharge, I would use the entire pack's capacity, but for range calculation, one has to factor in the anti-bricking buffer of about 5%.

    Note... thinking about it more, I'm thinking the upper end is more likely 65 kWh, or 488 hp, and getting about 2.9 or 3.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Electric Dream
    There is no doubt in my mind that all Teslas could go much faster than they can now. This has been confirmed to me by someone who has first-hand information.

    How much the performance is limited by:
    a) Software restrictions
    b) Current hardware (motors, batteries)
    c) Tesla not wanting to allow owners to go that fast

    is all up for discussion, but speaking personally I would consider it a very big letdown if the M3 was restricted in some way so it couldn't accelerate at least as quickly as the current fastest MS.

    What I'm saying is that in 18 month's time, which is the very earliest I would expect to be able to order my M3, I expect the S will be even quicker than the MS P100D and the 3 will be made available with the options to allow it go 0-60 in 2.5 secs or thereabouts.

    That would be good enough for me, although I'm the sort of person who would always want more power and quicker acceleration if they could get it (at a reasonable price).

    I have a small concern and that is similar to the Autopilot discussions. i.e. if we have several accidents where drivers haven't used the performance responsibly, it will lead to outcries from all sorts of Nimbies wanting restrictions, new laws etc. to stop us enjoying something we've waited a long time and paid a lot of money for.

    I trust Elon will resist any pressure to restrict performance, after all he did say "We don't make slow cars!"
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    wallet.dat
    Software limitations aside, I believe the physical limiting factor is the inverter. The S/X uses a 320kW inverter, while the Mod3 will employ a "300kW+" unit. Back of the napkin numbers suggest that the 3 will be capable of making at least 94% the power that the S/X does... all in a lighter platform.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    andrerodpt
    And I think we may very soon reach the limit of the tires. How can they get the S to 60 in 2,5s with "stock" tires is beyond comprehension. But there is a limit.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    techmaven
    It is likely that Tesla limits the discharge c-rate based on two major factors... reliability of the fuse and interconnects and the long term lifecycle characteristics of the battery. While it is possible to decrease the buffer in those parameters to increase performance, there would be consequences. The Model 3's battery chemistry likely includes more silicon in the anode, which has had lifecycle issues in the lab. Therefore, I would assume they stay relatively conservative with similar discharge c-rates. As a result, the c-rate is likely the limiting factor in performance.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Trips
    I have always thought that the Model S will be faster. I do not know how many people will pay $110k+ for a 3P100DL. In the big picture of things very few P100DL's will be sold.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    zuwarrior14
    S65 is 4 secs v.s C63 3.9 secs?
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    EinSV
    I agree Model 3 PxxDL 0-60 will hit under 3.0 seconds -- probably 2.5 seconds or better IMO.

    Tesla wants to dazzle the world with the Model 3. Its profit margins should be almost as high as S and X so I don't think they'll have a reason to hold back on Model 3 performance just to make the Model S look better, just as BMW does not restrict its M3 performance so M5 owners feel better.

    The Model 3 PxxDL is going to be a beast.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    Many high drain 18650s are capable of 10-12 C easy. Therefore, discharge rate not currently a limiting factor. I would imagine similar capabilities in 21700 cells.

    Weight is not a limiting factor with an increased energy density, if anything it'll be lighter than the current Model S packs. Current packs are said to be roughly 265 Wh/kg meaning 100kWh = 377 kg improvements in energy density will mean an even lighter pack at the same capacity.

    Volume is the only potentially limiting factor and we don't know exactly how the cells are going to be laid out nor how they will be cooled.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    andrerodpt
    I stand corrected. My bad.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    eSpiritIV
    I think there will be a performance version upgrade on top of the Dual motor upgrade. With that i bet it will be a "Package" required that boost battery size in order to meet those performance needs. The cost will get quite high and in to Model S price territory. If they can make more money off a loaded model 3 than a base model S, then thats great! Let them become profitable. Its like somebody buying a fully loaded BMW M3, vs a base model 5 series. You are buying the M3 if you want performance in a small sedan, or a 5 series if you want a standard performing car in a larger package! You can have both cars and not cannibalize too much of the other. Things will work out like with most auto manufacturers, where less desireable models and packages go away and lead the way to new options to attract customers.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    wallet.dat
    Between my own reservations about diving head-first into a v1.0 platform and the rapid progress made in battery technology, I'm actually giving some thought into foregoing my March 31st reservation and waiting a year or so. Sigh. I used to be so indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    techmaven
    Note the chemistry.

    High drain chemistries are not high specific energy chemistries. It isn't about form factor, 18650 or 2170, it doesn't matter. This is an issue of battery chemistry. And weight is certainly a big limiting factor, not volume.

    The current packs are around 160-165 Wh/kg (before the 100 kWh pack, which didn't change the cells at all). You are talking at the cell level. And yes, I'm factoring in the next step change in chemistry to allow for a lighter pack with higher specific energy, using 180 Wh/kg. But again, they are likely adding more silicon to the anode with an NCA battery chemistry is that is first optimized for specific energy, not power density. And silicon in the anode has had life cycle problems hence there is very little silicon in anode right now. Given life cycle issues, they are unlikely to push the boundaries of discharge c-rate.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    3s-a-charm
    BMW M3/M4 vs M5. The M3/4 is faster than an M5 but people buy the car that works for them and their budget - not necessarily just the fastest.

    PS. Can we stop callin the Model 3 "M3"?
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    eisbock
    My understanding is that the bigger the battery, the more energy you can discharge (and charge). The P100DL is heavier, but also faster because you can dump more power into the motors compared to a P90DL.

    The Model 3 will not have anywhere near a 100kWh battery, so I don't forsee it beating the S in acceleration. Reduced weight will only get you so far, and the fact that the 3 will have more steel doesn't necessarily mean it'll be that much lighter. Hell, it could be a wash as far as weight goes. Smaller car + heavier materials = larger car + lighter materials. For the record, I do think it'll be lighter, but certainly not the feather people are hyping it up to be.

    Aerodynamics also won't affect acceleration much.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    WarpedOne
    No.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    xav-
    It's More about economics than physics. I doubt tesla will make a car that is faster than its SPXXX

    To be fair.. Do we care? How much is that car going to be? $80k starting?
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    EinSV
    Depending on how many options are bundled, my guess is it will be roughly $65K (US), and destroy the performance of any ICE car in that range (BMW M3 starts at $64K (US)).
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    xav-
    Anyway we will find out soon. Guess which cars will ship first? The performance version hehe!!

    One of the reasons why existing tesla customers have priority. Far more likely to buy $80k model 3.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    xav-
    Makes sense ! But it will be AWD and likely beat the BMW m3.. So I think they could charge a premium. $65k starting would be not too bad though
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    Chemistry is Nickel Cobalt Aluminum don't count the pack frame ~250+ lbs in density because that's a constant.

    100 kWh / 265 Wh/kg + ~114kg = roughly 1100 lbs give or take 100 lbs

    Decrease pack dimensions and increase density and you'll find a lighter weight 100kWh battery pack.

    This is true only to a point and that's the max C rate ... currently ludicrous mode is well below specs so no worries. You can check out any of the other faster non-production electric cars. All of which have smaller battery capacities!
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    Yes, this guy says it's about 2 seconds.

    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Alketi
    Exactly. The BMW M3 is ~$65K / 3.8s 0-60. I'd be shocked if the Model 3 doesn't beat it on both counts. These figures have to be on an internal slide somewhere at Tesla HQ. Beating it by a full second wouldn't be bad either, as a mic-drop demonstration of what the future looks like with EV technology.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    S'toon
    Not going to happen, even if they could make it sub 3secs. Tesla is not going to Osborne their S. Musk said the S and X will always have the most high tech cutting edge features. The 3 will be easy to build, not tinkering with more and more features like they do with the S and X.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    No tinkering involved... it's already proven tech. If it can be mass produced in a cost effective manner then it will find it's way to the Model 3.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I agree. Or at least I hope.....
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    The MS doesn't have a "spaceship type feel". The M3 is supposed to according to Elon. Right?
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    WileyTheMan
    My guess is we would be seeing a Ludicrous M3 at low 3s initially. They have to leave *some* room for improvement for future upgrades. :)

    And I'm not saying I hope they limit performance of the M3, but low 3s is fantastical performance for any car of any price range. They don't need to prove anything at that point.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    3Victoria
    The S Z and 3 are all different vehicles with different customers. Som wnt a bigger sedan and will buy the S, despite L desihnations. I don't think 3L will cannablize the SLs.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    S'toon
    Not going to happen. They won't Osborne their S and X sales.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    This is how I think of it.

    A year from now the 100D will be OLD news. It will be proven in. There might even be a 120D by then...who knows. For those who believe that the M3 absolutely must be behind the MS in quality/performance and everything.... I feel that 100D will certainly be an option AND trail the MS at the same time.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    The competition of the M3 is not the MS or MX.

    The competition with the M? is Audi, BMW, Porsche and such.

    I can't imagine Tesla saying "yeah...we could out perform/out pace / out sell the Audi A3, Bmw M3 ..etc... however we have this internal rule that says that the M? MUST suck because ......".

    There could only be one option for investors at that point.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    dsvick
    What he said was "The Model S and the X are always going to be our technology leader. We�re not intentionally trying to withhold technology from the 3 but rather because it�s fundamentally more expensive when you have new technology until you can do multiple design iterations and achieve economies of scale."

    So, yes, once the technology and software has been tested and proven in the MS and MX it will almost certainly find its way to the M3 eventually.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    J1mbo
    It is going to be 3, isn't it, or some Elon humour like 3.14.

    Battery-power... they stated last year that they were aiming for a 30% smaller car. So that gives an initial max of 70kWh assuming the bigger format cells can be packed & cooled as efficiently as the new 100 battery.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    ProphetM
    I have no fear that they will artificially limit the quickness of the Model 3 in software. If it is slower than the S, it will be because of the requirements of the design - battery, wiring, motors, etc - that it needs to achieve high volume and keep costs down. It's all academic for me anyway; I will be getting the largest battery for range but I have no interest in a high-performance Ludicrous variant. Even the bargain-basement stock version will be far quicker than anything I've ever owned, and I have no desire to race anyone.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    chipmunk
    Something else to consider: In addition to all the comments about battery current limits, Model S was originally designed with space for a large motor in the rear. I don't think it's safe to assume that space has been reserved in the smaller Model 3.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Neohippy
    Even at 3 second 0-60 I will be very happy. Anything more is a bonus.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    JeffK
    You might want to check out the definition of the Osborne effect if you're going to throw it around so much (incorrectly).
    Osborne effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What you're looking for is
    Market Cannibalization Definition | Investopedia

    Tesla stands to make a lot more money with the Model 3 in volume so I highly doubt they'd cripple the Model 3. The buyers for the Model S are a totally different market than the Model 3.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Understood, but leave room for those of us who live and breath ludicrous.

    I believe it would be best to have it an not use it than to not have it available at all.

    If anyone wants to drive it in valet mode...that's fine with me.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Excellent point about they making so much more money with the M3.
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Do you have me on ignore or something?

    Everyone...how can you tell if someone is ignoring you? ( I'm ready for the jokes )
    �
  • Aug 25, 2016
    Garlan Garner
  • Aug 25, 2016
    cronosx
    That's the wrost article i've ever seen on electrek, if you read the comment on other articles they are going to try the deal on the bolt, yes, of course someone will go to model 3, but again, this is just that they want an EV. the vast majority of people in that deal wanted a LOW COST car, and the Model 3 isn't, they were ok if they get a huge discount, hell i would be ok too if they gave me 10k for free. you can even sell the car after 2 years and don't get depreciated!
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    They managed 0.3 second improvement in the P90DL to P100DL
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    Incorrect. Ludicrous was stated
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    What do you mean battery capacity?
    Are you saying it doesn't matter whether it's a 60kw or 100kw battery for output purposes?
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    Spot on
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    cronosx
    I don't get your point, as said, it's not linear, another 0.3 will not obtained with just 10% more battery, it will probably need a 35% more battery, and from 2.2 to 2.0 probably another 30% ( on top of the 35% ) etc etc etc
    Of course you can half the weight, this will be a huge factor, but it's not going to happend on the model s so easily
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    andrerodpt
    Interesting. I didn't know it would be so low.
    All that torque from 0 to absolutely 100% in an instant should have its toll on the tires.
    I'm assuming Tesla's have some sort of launch control, right? Otherwise, with the "right" conditions you could burnout from all 4's at once.
    I have a feeling Tesla is in an uncharted territory, right now. They are on a verge to create a downright dangerous car, not suitable for everyone. And even if you have the grip, just imagine how uncomfortable would be the G's (granted it's for a couple of seconds) for a 2' 0-60 acceleration.

    When I test drove a P85D, just the "passing acceleration" was eye opening. I kept telling in advance when I would floor it to my wife. And even then, she wasn't happy.

    (Btw: I was ecstatic)
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    The Model 3 battery area is 83.5% of the Model S, based on my quick calculations of both vehicles' wheelbase x width dimensions, so I see no reason to have an 80kWh battery or even 90kWh with the new 2170 cells
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Jbailey
    Could be....30-40K or so less than the equivalent model P100 D model S.

    I anticipate the model 3 top of the line will be 100-110K with premium stereo, wheels paint etc, and I'm anticipating 110 K.

    I would personally pay 100-110K for a Model 3 with model s P100D performance, and i am hoping they can pull it off. My family has 3 reserved. I'll shoot for the top of the line on mine and my son and son in law will probably go for near base models. I'm hoping the model 3 will have the price and performance range for all of us.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    J1mbo
    Why stop at 90kWh? Don't let physics get in the way!
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Neohippy
    So you really think a 35k car can become 110k? I don't think that's at all possible. No model of any car made with options is 3X the base price. I can't see the M3 selling for more then 80k. Even at 80k that's very high.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    dsvick
    The G's shouldn't be overwhelming, certainly not enough to be uncomfortable or make anyone pass out. The Top Thrill Dragster hits 0 - 60 in 1.2 seconds and maxes out at 2 G's and it isn't bad at all - makes your eyes water a bit though. Just How Quick are Roller Coasters? - Feature

    I think the biggest problem will be people not expecting it and being surprised and possible losing control.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    andrerodpt
    Using the same method of calculation, assuming a 109ft for 60-0 braking distance (Tesla Model S Reviews and Rating - Motor Trend) for the MS P90DL, we get a 2,47' for 0-60 acceleration.

    Assuming also that the braking distance is slightly worse on the P100DL (heavier), I must assume that the 2,5' for 0-60 is theoretically constrained by the tires.
    Unless the P100DL gets some stickier tires, in theory it won't get below 2,5'.

    Am I thinking wrong?
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    JeffK
    I'm saying that if cooling is adequate you can you can take even a 40 kWh capacity battery and get out 1000-1500 kW of power (see Zombie 222 which can currently do a sub 2 second 0-60mph). He's upgraded the battery but it's not about capacity, it's about power output.

    The max a Tesla can currently handle AFAIK is 1500A * 400V = 600 kW
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Jbailey
    100k for a 2.5 s 0-60 mph car?...sign me up. I can't afford the 4.7 million dollar Laferrari alternative without selling a few needed organs. If it is only 80k, it will be back ordered to infinity

    Time will tell
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    andrerodpt
    But when you do it right (think EV), you won't need to spend that amount to access that performance. Tesla or a future competitor will do it quite cheaper than that.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    JohnSnowNW
    The difference between the base 60 and the base 100D (which includes ludicrous) is a factor of 2.06.

    M3: 35,000 x 2.06 = $72k

    You could get to ~$90k by ticking all the options...but you don't need to pay that to get the performance you're interested in.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    EXOTIC1
    I still think you'll see the top of the mountain M3 under 90k before tax savings
    We shall see:)
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    No way. The M? will be cheaper than that. Efficiency and a fully automated assembly process will care for that. Unlike the MS and MX, the M? production will be totally automated. Even more importantly - Tesla won't be buying batteries for it - they will be making them about 120 miles away.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    I'm not sure what you mean.
    Do you mean that it could be a 100kW battery with the 2170 cells?
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    Why do you think the P100DL has shaved 0.3 seconds off the P90DL time?
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    JeffK
    the P90DL was only ever putting out a little less than 500 kW (the newer models a little more than 500kW the older ones were around 450kW) but the system should theoretically be capable of 600 kW.

    That or it's no longer a 400V battery or they're pushing more current (more than 1500A) through the inconel contactor. If more current is allowed then it's possible to go even quicker.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    JohnSnowNW
    The $35k price is taking all of those reductions into account, and the $72k price tag is simply keeping the profit-margin similar. While Tesla will have lower margins on the base and mid-level M3's, they're going to maximize profit on the top-tier model. It should be noted that the $72k model represents the 2.5 second 0-60 model (if it's possible).
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Jayc
    2.8s (0-60 P90DL) - 2.5s (0-60 P100DL) = 0.3 seconds
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    It's worth noting that, unlike most manufacturers, Tesla understates their times. Brooks at DragTimes managed a 2.65s time in the P90DL. So the tested time for the P100DL might be 2.4s


    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    shokunin
    That's a broad brush on "understates" their times. While it has been true for 0-60, it has not been true for the quarter mile advertisements of P90D 10.9 on Ludicrous models. The 0-60 times are also misleading as only the Performance models use 1 foot rollout on 0-60 while all the other (90/75/70/60) models do not. So the 0-60 you need add an rough estimate of .3 seconds to compare it to the other non-performance models.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    Tesla do not state quarter mile times on their website
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    shokunin
    Under load the voltage will sag far below 400v. The more recent P90Dv3 packs seems to have less voltage sag as well as increased current past 1500A.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    shokunin
    They used to until the P100D announcement. They state 10.9 in quarter mile for Ludicrous option and 20% faster to 155mph than regular performance.

    There are many threads on the inability to hit that metric, only recently has someone been able to achieve 10's in the quarter mile with latest revision to the 90kw pack. Many have tried and failed.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2016
    Nuclear Fusion
    Ok. I'm just focussing on 0-60, which was understated on the P85DI & the P90DL
    Hence why the 2.5s for the P100DL might be understated also
    �
  • Aug 27, 2016
    ohmman
    I will be disappointed if the acceleration in the Model 3 doesn't approach that of the best trimmed Model S. Disappointed for myself personally, not disappointed in the product. Since our X will be our road tripper, I'm looking for something smaller, fast and sporty. If the S is crushing it on acceleration, I may find myself getting another S instead of the 3.
    �
  • Aug 27, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I don't think I need to say anything except - ABSOLUTELY.
    battery.jpg
    �
  • Aug 28, 2016
    mhan00
    Ummmmm, how is this a case of the III causing Nissan issues? The III is basically unrelated to the case. Some of the potential buyers saying they'd wait for the III after Nissan rejected their bid for a huge discount on the Leaf hardly constitutes the III causing Nissan issues.
    �
  • Aug 28, 2016
    tashtibet
    speed/fastness isn't a deal for me -all I want is overall spec/performance of the car-SPEED THRILLS BUT KILLS
    �
  • Aug 28, 2016
    JeffK
    A percentage of the market will also be about bragging rights vs practicality. See nearly every sports car, super car, luxury car etc.

    That said, it's also about showing what EVs are capable of instead of being overpriced, underpowered, econoboxes.
    �
  • Aug 28, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    If you feel comfortable thinking that the ? isn't causing Nissan Issues then go with that. I'm going to stick with what I believe. Please put a stickpin in this discussion. I want to review it in 18 months.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    Yes.

    Why? Remember, the Tesla Generation III vehicles are meant to compete with BMW 3-Series cars. The quickest one of those is the M3, and it pummels every other BMW car they offer. Yes, including the flagship 7-Series vehicles. All of them, including the Alpina variants. That strategy seems to have worked fine for them.

    The Tesla Roadster has been surpassed by both the Tesla Model S and Model X multiple times when it comes to quickness. Are those Roadster owners truly PO'd by that circumstance? I think it is much more likely they are proud of the progress Tesla Motors has made, and also feel vindicated as well for their choice of going fully electric. It would take a rather short sighted individual to be somehow angry that a car they own that blows the doors, socks, and wigs off every competitor in class is less capable than a newer design, even if it cost less.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    [BOLSHEVIK]. Speed never killed anyone in the entire history of like, EVER, and stuff. Rapid deceleration trauma is what kills people. Ask any coroner, forensic medical examiner, or first responder. In other news: Trees don't move.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    Correct. Sales of the Tesla Model ? P100D alone will be higher than those of all the Model S sales combined regardless of trim level. Tesla Motors won't lose a dime. Especially since the Model S is busily eating the breakfast, lunch, and dinner of AUDI A8 L, BMW 7-Series, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and Porsche Panamera.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    I am gonna make sure not to place you on the [IGNORED] list, just so I can be there to behold your stammerings when you learn how incredibly incorrect your pessimistic musings have been. You simply do not appreciate the magnitude of what Elon Musk intends to bring forth upon the automotive industry.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Alketi
    Someone gives a reasoned prediction on battery sizes and acceleration and are threatened with ignore and told they're stammering? What is happening?
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    As long as the Tesla Model S P100D manages to sell at a rate more than those who will buy a Porsche Panamera Turbo S ($180,300), Alpina B7 ($137,955), or AMG S63 ($144,175) I'm good. And no, the Tesla Model ? P100D is highly unlikely to cost anywhere near $110,000. It will handily dismiss and embarrass vehicles that cost that much that don't bear a Tesla emblem, of course... But it will cost a whole lot less money than its most direct competitors. The Performance edition of the Model ? will be priced as a bargain compared to other cars in class, such as BMW M3 ($64,000), BMW M4 ($66,200), Cadillac ATS-V ($60,695), Mercedes-AMG C63 S ($73,250). And likely right in line with AUDI S4 ($49,200), Jaguar XE S ($48,100), Lexus IS 350 F-Sport AWD ($45,750), and Infiniti Q50 3.0ti Red Sport ($47,950).
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    Actually, I noted that I will not [IGNORE] him (though it is tempting) and predicted he will be stammering about this time next year. His predictions are, in my previously stated opinion, rather pessimistic. If they are reasonable to you, cool. Don't worry though, I'm sure he has already placed me on his own Ignore list.:D
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    Yes, but it's a little different at BMW. The base price for the M3 ($64,000) or M4 ($66,200) are higher than the base price for the 5-Series ($60,900). So, you don't even have to max out options on the M3 or M4 to get into the 5-Series price range. I expect the base price for the Tesla Model ? in Performance trim to be substantially lower than the base price of the Tesla Model S 60. I'm guessing by at least $15,000 or so. That way, a fully loaded, completely maxed out, optioned to the hilt version of a Tesla Model ? P100D might cost about the same as a Model S 75D. And that would be quite a bit less than a fully loaded M3 or M4.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    Does 90 kWh count as 'near'...? I expect to see a 135 kWh battery pack in the Tesla Model ? some day. I foresee the Tesla Model ? attaining new heights in terms of both acceleration and top speed well beyond what the Model S has done so far. For many of the same reasons that the Ford GT40 is far more capable than was the Ford Model T. With the passage of time and multiple iterations, technology advances far beyond what may have been considered formidable, or insurmountable limitations at one time. The phrase 'Tesla Generation III' means something.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Tech_Guy
    From what I've heard the S and X will always be the technology leaders for Tesla. They are the premium models with the newest features and the most performance the Model 3 will get the tried and perfected features after they have been perfeted on the S and X so it's definitely going to be a solid car but I doubt they would make it perform better then the S or X.

    I'd guess in the 3 second to 60 range for a P85DL Model 3, I doubt it would get a 100KW pack due to many reasons even with the capacity increase from the larger cells. Suffice to say I have my reservation to add a Model 3 to my Tesla family and I will buy the largest battery available which will come with the Performance Dual Motor Ludicrous option.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    You are willing to make that statement about a non 100 M3 - 18 months early?

    Remember the MS didn't even exist 4 years ago.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Tech_Guy
    As I said that's my guess... You know the saying opinions are like ........ Everyone has one that's mine
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    gotcha.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    JeffK
    Well the comment was meaning that new features are expensive and will appear in the Model S and X first .... it doesn't mean that the Model 3 is somehow crippled to be slower than the S and the X.

    I can go without the auto presenting door handles...
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Tech_Guy
    Somehow I don't think it would be a smart move for Tesla to make the 3 quicker then the S. Think about it the S and X are the money makers for Tesla, without them you wouldn't have a 3 or the other future models... Also I don't think a 3 second range 0 to 60 would cripple the Model 3 it would be the quickest car in that price range, but I do think a Model 3 that's faster then a Model S would cripple Tesla the company
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    wallet.dat
    While I'm certain that the S will always have an upgrade option to keep it on top, it's not entirely unreasonable to expect that Tesla might produce a Mod3 that's quicker than previous versions of the S PXXXD.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    ohmman
    The Model 3 should make more money for Tesla than the Model S. The margins won't be as high, but the volume will be vastly greater. Also, the highly optioned Model 3 is likely to approach the margins that we're seeing on the Model S today. I don't worry about the financial aspect of this. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla decides to differentiate the S on build options - more "luxury" options, for instance - instead of acceleration alone.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Tech_Guy
    From what I've think I've read in a cost saving move isn't the Model 3 going to be built with more steel vs aluminum or possibly all steel vs the Model S and X and thus will be heavier weight car for its size as well? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere...

    I still feel a car that's quickest in its category isnt out of the question, for example see people in this thread compareing the Model 3 to the BMW M3, which for example is 3.8 seconds to 60. I see no reason the Model 3 wouldn't be at least 1/2 a second faster then the fastest car in the category 3.2-3.3 to 60 seems about right and that would be about as quick as a non ludicrous P90D Model S...

    It's all speculation but that's my theory
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    3Victoria
    EM has said that Tesla doesn't make slow cars. I think that they will maximize Model 3's speed to the best of their ability. There are many tradeoffs to be made in terms of construction (amount of aluminum, motor size, etc), but batteries and motor efficiency will improve with time. I do not think Tesla will prevent 3's from being faster then S's, but all will depend on options. All their cars will be excellent cars. The new Roadster will probably take the speed crown.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    ohmman
    At some point, maybe. But that project is shelved, according to Elon at the Gigafactory event.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Red Sage
    Tesla Motors will not limit, compromise, cripple, or otherwise gimp the Model ? to protect the Model S. There is no viable reason for such an action. People will buy what they want, need, and can afford. AUDI A4 outsells A8 L, BMW 3-Series outsells 7-Series, Jaguar XE will outsell XJ, Lexus IS outsells LS, Mercedes C-Class outsells S-Class. That is by design, on purpose, and fully expected. Those are the cars that pay the bills, keep the lights on, and allow those traditional automobile manufacturers the flow of cash necessary to pursue their true passion with high end vehicles. If Tesla Motors' sub-$40,000 cars were being outsold by their over $66,000 cars that have an average sale price of around $105,000 there would be something seriously wrong. The Model ? and other Tesla Generation III vehicles have been the goal of the company for the past ten-plus years. They are not a nuisance or an afterthought, but the very reason the company exists.

    Think of it this way... Tesla Motors originally intended to sell something on the order of 15,000 of the Model S per year. At that rate, they sold one-and-a-half years worth of cars in 2013... Then two years worth of cars in 2014... Another three years worth of cars in 2015... And are on a pace to sell four years worth of cars in 2016... So, by the end of this year, only four-and-a-half years into an eight year product cycle, they will have sold over 11 years worth of cars. Don't worry about the Model S. It has done its job.

    Because Tesla Motors will not compromise on the Model ?, come this time of year two years from now, they will have Delivered those cars at a rate to match over 11 years worth of Chevrolet BOLT Production. Remember the Mission. It is better to sell ten Model ? with a 12% margin than one Model S with a 25% margin. Even if the Model S were to somehow drop to 'only' 45,000 units per year, that is still three times as much as they had intended to build per annum anyway. It is also far more than Porsche will ever manage with the Panamera, Audi will get out of the A8 L, or BMW can hope for from the 7-Series.

    Tesla Motors is WINNING.
    �
  • Aug 29, 2016
    Evil.Labrat
    Or as Elon might call it Rapid Unscheduled Deceleration.
    �
  • Aug 30, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Yes Tech Guy, but the roadster was the money maker before the S and X. The roadster funded the S and the X.

    Now the S and X is funding the 3. ( new money maker )

    Then the 3 is going to fund the ..........?
    �
  • Aug 30, 2016
    JeffK
    I don't think they are particularly pricing it to fund something else but the margins are high relative to other automakers so it might be to fund expansion and further development of future models and sustainable transportation. (truck, bus, semi, autonomous submersible car, etc)
    �
  • Aug 30, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I agree. I've been trying to make this very point on other threads. At least there is another advocate. They are NOT using the M3 to fund anything else. So they don't have to charge the same thing on the M3 that they do on the MS and MX.
    �
  • Aug 30, 2016
    Neohippy
    This is true but I'm sure investors want to finally see some profit margins. Most options are not not overpriced. I sure hope ludicrous isn't 10k though.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)