teslamotorclub: Sub 3 seconds for Model 3 DL part 2

Garlan Garner said: ?

I don't think I need to say anything except - ABSOLUTELY.
View attachment 191837
Click to expand...

Based on this datasheet, the bigger cells have lower energy density than the 18650s (datasheet) - 224wh/kg vs 243Wh/kg - unless Panasonic have a new chemisty which hasn't been disclosed yet. It is unlikely that they are the key to a 100kWh M3 unless the battery is twice the height of the MS battery.

The advantage to Tesla of the new format is that they should be cheaper to make. As M3 is all about low cost, this is not too surprising...

More efficient packaging and thermal management seem to be big factors behind the (expected) range increase of the P100DL, and no doubt this approach will be used in the M3 to keep costs & weight down.

IMO it is entirely possible that the Luda M3 will have a smaller version of the P100DL's pack, complete with 18650s.
�

So far, Tesla (not to mention Elon) have been remarkably restrained with the 3's numbers - quoting a sub 6 second 0 to 60 along with the promise of a Ludicrous option for those who prefer to select their pants from Fall/Autumnal hues.

Meanwhile the S and the X are pushed toward a Ludicrous-er 2.5 and 2.9!

At this rate, will there be any point in bothering with Plaid?

2018/19 is supposed to be when other car makers launch their S-killers, but these vehicles were aiming to beat a pre-facelift 2015/6 S which is no longer in production. Who in their right mind was expecting to counter a sub-3 second SUV?

I'm guessing that Elon will use Part Deux to reveal numbers for the 3 which, once again will cause greater headaches for competitors and maintain Tesla as impossible-to-ignore and worth-the-wait.
�

Garlan Garner said: ?

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 ..........?
Click to expand...

The 3 is supposed to fund the entire company and keep it alive for the rest of the part 2 master plan. Not to mention the rumored Y model and pickup trucks. And then there's the factories they want to build in China and Europe. Oh, and additional Giga factories. Plus there's the superchargers and service centers they're absolutely going to have to set up to address the increasing numbers of cars they're hoping to put on the road. Service centers are already slammed with cars now, it'll only get much, much worse when Tesla has tripled their current manufacturing rate.

Tesla 's desperate need for money doesn't magically end with the Model 3 release
�

J1mbo said: ?

Based on this datasheet, the bigger cells have lower energy density than the 18650s (datasheet) - 224wh/kg vs 243Wh/kg - unless Panasonic have a new chemisty which hasn't been disclosed yet. It is unlikely that they are the key to a 100kWh M3 unless the battery is twice the height of the MS battery.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that neither the 18650 nor the 2170 batteries are using off-the shelf chemistries that can be bought on Amazon, for example. This is the realm of a highly proprietary, specific design.

Tesla has also confirmed that the 2170 will be using a different chemistry than the current 18650 cell.
�

Alketi said: ?

I strongly suspect that neither the 18650 nor the 2170 batteries are using off-the shelf chemistries that can be bought on Amazon, for example. This is the realm of a highly proprietary, specific design.

Tesla has also confirmed that the 2170 will be using a different chemistry than the current 18650 cell.
Click to expand...

The 18650 I linked to is the "B" variant which Tesla used in their 85 packs.

Have you got a link where Telsa confirm new chemistry? EM mentioned a "30% increase" at the GF launch, but that relates to the volumetric size of the cell (would be a significant breakthrough if he meant ED).
�

J1mbo said: ?

Luda M3
Click to expand...

You mean this?
�

JeffK said: ?

You mean this?
Click to expand...

Nah, that's a 750 Alpina
�

J1mbo said: ?

Nah, that's a 750 Alpina
Click to expand...

Haha I was too lazy to photoshop his face onto a proper BMW M3
�

J1mbo said: ?

The 18650 I linked to is the "B" variant which Tesla used in their 85 packs.

Have you got a link where Telsa confirm new chemistry? EM mentioned a "30% increase" at the GF launch, but that relates to the volumetric size of the cell (would be a significant breakthrough if he meant ED).
Click to expand...

They're using the B with no modifications?

Elon/JB repeated upon the 100kWh introduction (last week) that no chemistry changes were made to reach 100kWh -- that chemistry changes would take place for the 2170. I don't have a link, but you should be able to find it with some searching.
�

Neohippy said: ?

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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - Investors have had profit margins for a long time. That's why the investments are being made by investors. Large scale investors don't make investments based on hopes and dreams. They make investments based on projected data.
�

Alketi said: ?

They're using the B with no modifications?

Elon/JB repeated upon the 100kWh introduction (last week) that no chemistry changes were made to reach 100kWh -- that chemistry changes would take place for the 2170. I don't have a link, but you should be able to find it with some searching.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The 100kWh upgrade was achieved because of advancements in cooling which allowed them to place the cells closer - thereby being able to fit more cells in.
�

Some links:

Cell chemistry, from about a year ago: Charged EVs | Tesla tweaks its battery chemistry: a closer look at silicon anode development

Cell cooling, from a few days ago: What makes the Tesla 100 kWh battery so different?
�

malcolm said: ?

Cell cooling, from a few days ago: What makes the Tesla 100 kWh battery so different?
Click to expand...

As I said back in April...

J1mbo said: ?

One area of improvement which would save weight and energy could be battery cooling - Patent 20150244036 describes a heat pipe system for cooling & heating which I don't remember seeing in a Model S battery, and Patent 20140193683 describes a "battery pack base heat exchanger". Are we seeing some of this tech already in the Powerpack modules...?
Click to expand...

�

Red Sage said: ?

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.
Click to expand...

I hope your prediction reins true, and I agree with most of what you said. Entry luxury models outsell their larger counterparts for sure but those larger models all have features not found in the entry model. Is Ludacris that sort of feature? Only Tesla knows.
Second almost all potential or future customers of a product will urge price setters to keep the price low in order to increase the volume. "Make the price 25% lower and you'll sell 60% more!" True or disingenuous? Maybe Teslas yearly capacity is only Y and if Y+100 want a car it might not be feasible to increase capacity for only 100 more sales. Thus it might work to just increase the price. We don't have the numbers only Tesla knows.
�

At the very least I hope the Mod3 can out-60 a Tesla SUV.
�

sitter_k said: ?

I hope your prediction reins true, and I agree with most of what you said. Entry luxury models outsell their larger counterparts for sure but those larger models all have features not found in the entry model. Is Ludacris that sort of feature? Only Tesla knows.
Click to expand...

No, we all know. Elon already said the M3 would have ludicrous. Watch Out: Tesla Model 3 Will Have Ludicrous Mode

sitter_k said: ?

Second almost all potential or future customers of a product will urge price setters to keep the price low in order to increase the volume. "Make the price 25% lower and you'll sell 60% more!" True or disingenuous? Maybe Teslas yearly capacity is only Y and if Y+100 want a car it might not be feasible to increase capacity for only 100 more sales. Thus it might work to just increase the price. We don't have the numbers only Tesla knows.
Click to expand...

People that say drop the price and you'll sell more generally don't understand the economics of why you can't always drop the price.

The current (as it was last reported) reservation number of 373,000 is roughly 7 times what Tesla produced in 2015, and is over 4 times what they plan to produce this year. Even given the accelerated production ramp for the M3, they won't be able to clear the existing reservations (if they all become orders) until sometime in 2018, and that assumes no additional reservations come in. With all that being said, Tesla has no desire to increase the price to reduce demand. Firstly, they said it would be a $35,000 base price so they can't raise that. Secondly, their goal isn't to simply sell vehicles, it is to sell electric vehicles to promote sustainable transportation, tothat end they will always try to sell as many as they can.
�

So the batteries in series give you the voltage. The batteries in parallel give you the current. The total (series x parallel) gives you the battery capacity. So if the smaller car size holds a smaller battery, and the voltage is fixed, then the amperage will be lower and hence smaller power output. That said, batteries keep getting better.

The smaller car will likely also have smaller wheels, and say what you will about force applied normal to a smooth surface being independent of surface area, a road is not smooth, and I expect lower forces will be possible on smaller tires. That said, tires can be changed out to a limit of the wheel well (without looking unorthodox).

And as noted the car will be lighter. But I don't think the ludicrous mode in the model 3 will hit sub 3 at least for the first couple of production years. I will be happy to be proven wrong.
�

beakmeister said: ?

So the batteries in series give you the voltage. The batteries in parallel give you the current. The total (series x parallel) gives you the battery capacity. So if the smaller car size holds a smaller battery, and the voltage is fixed, then the amperage will be lower and hence smaller power output. That said, batteries keep getting better.

The smaller car will likely also have smaller wheels, and say what you will about force applied normal to a smooth surface being independent of surface area, a road is not smooth, and I expect lower forces will be possible on smaller tires. That said, tires can be changed out to a limit of the wheel well (without looking unorthodox).

And as noted the car will be lighter. But I don't think the ludicrous mode in the model 3 will hit sub 3 at least for the first couple of production years. I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Get ready to be happy.

I'll be happy in 18 months.
�

beakmeister said: ?

So the batteries in series give you the voltage. The batteries in parallel give you the current. The total (series x parallel) gives you the battery capacity. So if the smaller car size holds a smaller battery, and the voltage is fixed, then the amperage will be lower and hence smaller power output. That said, batteries keep getting better.

The smaller car will likely also have smaller wheels, and say what you will about force applied normal to a smooth surface being independent of surface area, a road is not smooth, and I expect lower forces will be possible on smaller tires. That said, tires can be changed out to a limit of the wheel well (without looking unorthodox).

And as noted the car will be lighter. But I don't think the ludicrous mode in the model 3 will hit sub 3 at least for the first couple of production years. I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Smaller battery at a fixed voltage does NOT mean lower current (see numerous high performance EVs such as Zombie 222 etc). Cells in parallel means additional energy at the same voltage.

With more batteries in parallel you can more safely draw more current though.

Here's a small primer
Serial and Parallel Battery Configurations and Information
�

These two particular Panasonic cells barely differ in Wh/L. 2.5%. tesla has been alluding to 10%, before any chemistry update.
I doubt these public Panasonic cells are very relavant for Current Model S/X cells, let alone upcoming Model 3. Even the dimensions may be differt. 20.35mm max is called a 21?
�

dsvick said: ?

Secondly, their goal isn't to simply sell vehicles, it is to sell electric vehicles to promote sustainable transportation, tothat end they will always try to sell as many as they can.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a bit contradictory? I doubt any company's Corp mission ever speaks to making profit...I love what Tesla is doing, I'm a big fan and believe EVs are the future but I'm also a shareholder and Tesla is also a business and I have no illusions of Tesla being an altruistically driven entity. They want to save the environment. How? By selling everyone a Tesla of course...I doubt they will try to max their sales output and sacrifice profit.
�

J1mbo said: ?

The 18650 I linked to is the "B" variant which Tesla used in their 85 packs.
Click to expand...

Testing done by member wk057 says otherwise. While similar to the NCR18650B, the cells Tesla uses are slightly different.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

These two particular Panasonic cells barely differ in Wh/L. 2.5%. tesla has been alluding to 10%, before any chemistry update.
I doubt these public Panasonic cells are very relavant for Current Model S/X cells, let alone upcoming Model 3. Even the dimensions may be differt. 20.35mm max is called a 21?
Click to expand...

This is a post to hang on to for the next 18 months.
�

I'm just hopeful after driving a model s capable of a zero to sixty in four flat.....if I can get a model 3 AWD to do that I'll be pleased. I want AWD and sub 4 second zero to sixty...for under 55 grand....ill be pleased...

That's faster than my c6 450 hp m6 z51 corvette. I'm keeping my corvette as I take ownership of the model 3. I really don't want to drop more than 60 grand on the model 3 performance version with AWD.

I'll give up some performance if need be to keep that price point. I have a hard time processing cars over 60 grand...I might but I'm hopeful I don't have to.
�

JBsC6 said: ?

I'm just hopeful after driving a model s capable of a zero to sixty in four flat.....if I can get a model 3 AWD to do that I'll be pleased. I want AWD and sub 4 second zero to sixty...for under 55 grand....ill be pleased...

That's faster than my c6 450 hp m6 z51 corvette. I'm keeping my corvette as I take ownership of the model 3. I really don't want to drop more than 60 grand on the model 3 performance version with AWD.

I'll give up some performance if need be to keep that price point. I have a hard time processing cars over 60 grand...I might but I'm hopeful I don't have to.
Click to expand...

I'm with you.... ditto.
�

Red Sage said: ?

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.
Click to expand...

$15K less than a base Model S 60 is $51K. So you think Tesla is going to offer the Pxx version of Model 3 for just $16K above base. I don't think so. If anything, just like you mentionted, I think the price of the perfromance is going to be similar to the BMW M3 pricing. If you want the fastest performance it's only going to be available on the largest pack, dual motor option, possibly requires the air suspension. That's before you add the "premium" for the performance option. I wouldn't be surprise if the P option alone is $10K

base $35K
Dual motors $3.5K
upgraded batteries (2 tiers?) $15K
P option - $10K

Starting at $63.5
�

shokunin said: ?

Testing done by member wk057 says otherwise. While similar to the NCR18650B, the cells Tesla uses are slightly different.
Click to expand...

We know the 18650 cells have been developed over time. The current cells have tweaked chemistry that provides about 6% more energy than the original cells. What does that tell us about the new format? Nothing much IMO.

Certainly doesn't suggest 90kWh in a ~30% smaller volumetric area than the P100DL battery.
�

beakmeister said: ?

So the batteries in series give you the voltage. The batteries in parallel give you the current. The total (series x parallel) gives you the battery capacity. So if the smaller car size holds a smaller battery, and the voltage is fixed, then the amperage will be lower and hence smaller power output. That said, batteries keep getting better.

The smaller car will likely also have smaller wheels, and say what you will about force applied normal to a smooth surface being independent of surface area, a road is not smooth, and I expect lower forces will be possible on smaller tires. That said, tires can be changed out to a limit of the wheel well (without looking unorthodox).

And as noted the car will be lighter. But I don't think the ludicrous mode in the model 3 will hit sub 3 at least for the first couple of production years. I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe that Ludicrous means sub-3 seconds by default at this point. Insane was sub-3.5 seconds. Scary Fast was under 4.5 Seconds. Ludicrous will be available on the Performance vehicles per Elon.
�

shokunin said: ?

$15K less than a base Model S 60 is $51K. So you think Tesla is going to offer the Pxx version of Model 3 for just $16K above base. I don't think so. If anything, just like you mentionted, I think the price of the perfromance is going to be similar to the BMW M3 pricing. If you want the fastest performance it's only going to be available on the largest pack, dual motor option, possibly requires the air suspension. That's before you add the "premium" for the performance option. I wouldn't be surprise if the P option alone is $10K

base $35K
Dual motors $3.5K
upgraded batteries (2 tiers?) $15K
P option - $10K

Starting at $63.5
Click to expand...

For over two years my estimates have been based on the premise that Tesla Motors would have three main trim levels:

Base vehicle, rear wheel drive

Midrange vehicle, dual motor all eheel drive

Performance vehicle, dual motor maximum capacity battery pack, dual motor all wheel drive

My presumption is that there will be three battery pack capacities such as 55 kWh (software limited), 70 kWh, and 100 kWh, possibly a 90 kWh version instead. That would result in configurations such as:

Model 3 55 kWh RWD

Model 3 55D

Model 3 70 kWh RWD

Model 3 70D

Model 3 P100D

I believe each of those configurations could allow as much as $15,000 in options if requested. Thus, the base car could be $50,000 if all options were added to it. The Performance car would be a package featuring particular wheels and tires, suspension setup, brakes, seating, etc. It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000. As noted previously: a major bargain compared to other cars in class that have a Perfomance oriented edition. Remember, Model 3 is meant to be affordable. Costing a significant amount more to gouge Customers would be a bad idea.
�

sitter_k said: ?

Isn't that a bit contradictory? I doubt any company's Corp mission ever speaks to making profit...I love what Tesla is doing, I'm a big fan and believe EVs are the future but I'm also a shareholder and Tesla is also a business and I have no illusions of Tesla being an altruistically driven entity. They want to save the environment. How? By selling everyone a Tesla of course...I doubt they will try to max their sales output and sacrifice profit.
Click to expand...

You're right they won't. What saying is that I'm sure they've got a whole team of accountants and marketing specialists that have examined the question and they've come up with the proper balance to do both. Yes they could shift it to a higher price point and make more per sale but sell less, of they could lower the price and sell more but make less, but they've done this already. I don't think anyone on this forum can come in and accurately say, "they should do this, it'll be better".

If you have a different opinion, as a shareholder you can voice it, but you should also give them a bit of trust that they know what they're doing.
�

Tech_Guy said: ?

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
Click to expand...

You could say exactly the same thing about the Roadster; note that Tesla abandoned that. The Model 3 will be the money maker when they are producing 50,000 Model S, and 500,000 Model 3.

Thank you kindly.
�

sitter_k said: ?

Is Ludacris that sort of feature? Only Tesla knows.
Click to expand...

Actually, Tesla told us.
Elon Musk on Twitter

Thank you kindly.
�

Red Sage said: ?

For over two years my estimates have been based on the premise that Tesla Motors would have three main trim levels:

Base vehicle, rear wheel drive

Midrange vehicle, dual motor all eheel drive

Performance vehicle, dual motor maximum capacity battery pack, dual motor all wheel drive

My presumption is that there will be three battery pack capacities such as 55 kWh (software limited), 70 kWh, and 100 kWh, possibly a 90 kWh version instead. That would result in configurations such as:

Model 3 55 kWh RWD

Model 3 55D

Model 3 70 kWh RWD

Model 3 70D

Model 3 P100D

I believe each of those configurations could allow as much as $15,000 in options if requested. Thus, the base car could be $50,000 if all options were added to it. The Performance car would be a package featuring particular wheels and tires, suspension setup, brakes, seating, etc. It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000. As noted previously: a major bargain compared to other cars in class that have a Perfomance oriented edition. Remember, Model 3 is meant to be affordable. Costing a significant amount more to gouge Customers would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis. Would be good to know your pricing predictions for each trim with no options.
�

Red Sage said: ?

It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000.
Click to expand...

$74,925 nicely configured, inc. four years prepaid maint. but exc. DMV and the governor. That's my guess.
�

Topher said: ?

You could say exactly the same thing about the Roadster; note that Tesla abandoned that. The Model 3 will be the money maker when they are producing 50,000 Model S, and 500,000 Model 3.

Thank you kindly.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The M3 WILL be the money maker.
�

They should definitely ensure under 3 seconds is available (here's hoping for 2.5), and they should keep under 70k fully optioned as well. Both are numbers that will look great for Tesla.
�

A combination of lower car weight, good power and better cooling could make the Model 3 in P version a pretty rapid car around tracks with corners, not just drag races. That's the next way Tesla could impress the world. Although bringing 2.5 at half the budget will have an impact in its own right.
�

TheSuit said: ?

They should definitely ensure under 3 seconds is available (here's hoping for 2.5), and they should keep under 70k fully optioned as well. Both are numbers that will look great for Tesla.
Click to expand...

I'm all in with this suggestion.
�

Red Sage said: ?

For over two years my estimates have been based on the premise that Tesla Motors would have three main trim levels:

Base vehicle, rear wheel drive

Midrange vehicle, dual motor all eheel drive

Performance vehicle, dual motor maximum capacity battery pack, dual motor all wheel drive

My presumption is that there will be three battery pack capacities such as 55 kWh (software limited), 70 kWh, and 100 kWh, possibly a 90 kWh version instead. That would result in configurations such as:

Model 3 55 kWh RWD

Model 3 55D

Model 3 70 kWh RWD

Model 3 70D

Model 3 P100D

I believe each of those configurations could allow as much as $15,000 in options if requested. Thus, the base car could be $50,000 if all options were added to it. The Performance car would be a package featuring particular wheels and tires, suspension setup, brakes, seating, etc. It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000. As noted previously: a major bargain compared to other cars in class that have a Perfomance oriented edition. Remember, Model 3 is meant to be affordable. Costing a significant amount more to gouge Customers would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

This is the most reasonable estimation I've seen, and not just because it's about what my guess is as well. However, I do not believe that the top-end battery will be 100kWh... at least not right out the gate.
�

JBsC6 said: ?

I'm just hopeful after driving a model s capable of a zero to sixty in four flat.....if I can get a model 3 AWD to do that I'll be pleased. I want AWD and sub 4 second zero to sixty...for under 55 grand....ill be pleased...

That's faster than my c6 450 hp m6 z51 corvette. I'm keeping my corvette as I take ownership of the model 3. I really don't want to drop more than 60 grand on the model 3 performance version with AWD.

I'll give up some performance if need be to keep that price point. I have a hard time processing cars over 60 grand...I might but I'm hopeful I don't have to.
Click to expand...

Physics-wise, the Mod3 should be capable of performance similar to the S P100DL. However, if Tesla decides to artificially maintain a performance hierarchy, then I suspect a full on balls out Mod3 will fall somewhere in between the S and X in performance (so somewhere between 2.5 and 2.9 sec 0-60) I mean if we're going to maintain a hierarchy, we can't have an SUV outperforming the sports sedans, right?
�

wallet.dat said: ?

This is the most reasonable estimation I've seen, and not just because it's about what my guess is as well. However, I do not believe that the top-end battery will be 100kWh... at least not right out the gate.
Click to expand...

18 months is a long long time from now.

100KW will be such old technology by then - I would hope that the M3 would "at least" have 100kw available as the low end battery.

What was the newest battery pack for the MS 18 months ago? 85kw?
�

The low end battery will of course be just big enough to be a $35k car, with the claimed 215 mile range. This will not manage sub-3 0-60, but sub 6 is still great at that price point.
�

wallet.dat said: ?

This is the most reasonable estimation I've seen, and not just because it's about what my guess is as well. However, I do not believe that the top-end battery will be 100kWh... at least not right out the gate.
Click to expand...

Well, I did note that the maximum capacity might be 'only' 90 kWh instead...
�

I just realized 18 months is a long time from now, and Tesla promised at least 215 miles for the base model. By the time they start production, the GF will reduce cost and increase battery density, so a base model might be close to 250 miles lol
�

FirstSea said: ?

I just realized 18 months is a long time from now, and Tesla promised at least 215 miles for the base model. By the time they start production, the GF will reduce cost and increase battery density, so a base model might be close to 250 miles lol
Click to expand...

That's absolutely correct.
�

FirstSea said: ?

I just realized 18 months is a long time from now, and Tesla promised at least 215 miles for the base model. By the time they start production, the GF will reduce cost and increase battery density, so a base model might be close to 250 miles lol
Click to expand...

It is correct that 18 month is a long time, and things my happen in that time. But I do really think Tesla knew it was 18 month, and they knew that they was building the GF-I, so you really should think that this is calculated into their prediction

But on the other hand, they did say "at least 215 EPA miles" and "hope to make it more". So you may hope it will be more then this 215 miles EPA. But 250 may be to put your hope a bit hight for the base version, and may have a disappointment when the real numbers are released. But you may still hope for maybe 220-225 miles EPA. If that is to low range for you, everybody is expecting more then one battery option to be available, so it is not unreasonable to guess that you may order an battery upgrade to get your 250 miles EPA range (or more).
�

FirstSea said: ?

I just realized 18 months is a long time from now, and Tesla promised at least 215 miles for the base model. By the time they start production, the GF will reduce cost and increase battery density, so a base model might be close to 250 miles lol
Click to expand...

Yeah. It will certainly have about a 225 to 250 mile range with 60 kWh usable capacity. That can be managed if Tesla Motors chooses, I think. But if they decide that just barely reaching 215+ is 'enough', things will be different.
�

I truly believe that in 18 months.... 300 miles per charge is going to be the base range for ALL Teslas. Or at least 250 miles.
�

That may be true. I was always hoping Tesla would pull 300 mi base out of their hat at the last moment as other manufacturers are still scrambling for 200 mi.
�

Garlan Garner said: ?

What was the newest battery pack for the MS 18 months ago? 85kw?
Click to expand...

Forget 18 months, what was the newest battery pack 4 years ago? 85KW. The Model 3 isn't about packing the most amount of miles, it's for Tesla to build the least expensive pack with at least 200 miles of range while still making a profit.
�

Garlan Garner said: ?

I truly believe that in 18 months.... 300 miles per charge is going to be the base range for ALL Teslas. Or at least 250 miles.
Click to expand...

Lol. I'll take that bet (300 that is, 250 is more reasonable but still a stretch).

Elon is on record saying EVs don't need more range at this point, they need to be cheaper.

If the gigafactory achieves the massive cost improvements you're suggesting in 18 months, then the proper response is to lower the price of the car (or increase margins to fund further development), not mindlessly shove more batteries into a base model.
�

I would be happy with a 100 mile range tesla if it meant it was cheaper.
�

My guess is approximately 230 for the base model, and about 320 for the largest battery non-performance model. I think they will want enough capacity to be able to take the range hit but still clear 300 for the performance version, maybe 305-310.
�

The range of the base $35K model needs to be:

- At least what they said (215 miles)
- Better or equal to the competition
- No higher than they can withstand while still making a decent profit on a zero-option $35K car

Considering their (only) competition is the Chevy Bolt, which isn't so much "sales competition" as it is "bragging rights competition", to me, these factors point to a base range of somewhere around 220-225 miles.

When/if others show up in the EV space in 2019, and the Gigafactory gets rolling, then Tesla will begin increasing the battery size on the base model.

Lastly, the effective time to the next battery tech is not 18 months but something closer to 6 - 9 months, which can also be considered just one battery "generation" away. The Gigafactory is expected to come online at the end of this year, and will need to be producing cells soon after in anticipation for the July 2017 deadline.
�

ucmndd said: ?

Elon is on record saying EVs don't need more range at this point, they need to be cheaper.

If the gigafactory achieves the massive cost improvements you're suggesting in 18 months, then the proper response is to lower the price of the car (or increase margins to fund further development), not mindlessly shove more batteries into a base model.
Click to expand...

Actually, the proper course, should Tesla Motors achieve $90 or less per kWh before the end of this year is to have a 100 kWh base capacity. What Elon said was that there was a sweet spot over 250 miles and likely between 300 to 350 miles that would make EVs acceptable for almost anyone. Better to hit that mark affordably sooner rather than later.
�

300 miles on a tank of my solar would be sweet. I do plan on a battery upgrade but not sure where we'll be in 18 months. Seems 250 should certainly be reachable with perhaps 300 miles with upgrade.
�

Sharkbait said: ?

300 miles on a tank of my solar would be sweet. I do plan on a battery upgrade but not sure where we'll be in 18 months. Seems 250 should certainly be reachable with perhaps 300 miles with upgrade.
Click to expand...

I would hope that 300 miles per charge would be old news and easily achievable with the new battery technology that isn't even in the MS yet.
�

The 100kWh pack is now kept only to the S+X PL customers for the foreseeable future.
With Model 3, although the first 300-400,000 are already sold, it would be nice to make the largest pack, if it's properly large, also available for base models. Non-P, non-D, non-L. Just a long range car for a modest budget to be used where supercharging is less available, be it for-life ticket or pay-per-kWh. A shockingly large battery that gets you close to 400 miles in a surprisingly cheap car that's really quite nippy for a heavyish RWD car, that's going to upset the world market of cars. With the large waiting list for Model 3, great for resale value also.

More on topic, the sub-3 second sprint in the cheapest possible car (perhaps a non-P Model 3 90-100D might achieve it on the proper tires?) would certainly get a lot of people in line to get theirs. And the big battery mid price cars will be hardest to compete against for other brands, as they need time to bring their cost-per-kWh down.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

With Model 3, although the first 300-400,000 are already sold
Click to expand...

No. The 1k deposit is refundable and does in no way correspond to a sale.

The number of deposits probably gives a good indication of the magnitude of coming sales.
�

Red Sage said: ?

For over two years my estimates have been based on the premise that Tesla Motors would have three main trim levels:

Base vehicle, rear wheel drive

Midrange vehicle, dual motor all eheel drive

Performance vehicle, dual motor maximum capacity battery pack, dual motor all wheel drive

My presumption is that there will be three battery pack capacities such as 55 kWh (software limited), 70 kWh, and 100 kWh, possibly a 90 kWh version instead. That would result in configurations such as:

Model 3 55 kWh RWD

Model 3 55D

Model 3 70 kWh RWD

Model 3 70D

Model 3 P100D

I believe each of those configurations could allow as much as $15,000 in options if requested. Thus, the base car could be $50,000 if all options were added to it. The Performance car would be a package featuring particular wheels and tires, suspension setup, brakes, seating, etc. It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000. As noted previously: a major bargain compared to other cars in class that have a Perfomance oriented edition. Remember, Model 3 is meant to be affordable. Costing a significant amount more to gouge Customers would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope Tesla makes a 'maximum range' version of Model 3, per your line-up a
Model 3 100D
(with the dual motors allowing for a bit of extra range).
�

lklundin said: ?

No. The 1k deposit is refundable and does in no way correspond to a sale.

The number of deposits probably gives a good indication of the magnitude of coming sales.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But it doesn't seem like Model 3 is going to disappoint. And reservations will effectively be worth cash.

lklundin said: ?

Well, I hope Tesla makes a 'maximum range' version of Model 3, per your line-up a
Model 3 100D
(with the dual motors allowing for a bit of extra range).
Click to expand...

Actually, the efficiency seems to come more from the high efficiency front motor, rather than the dual motor aspect of it. One high efficiency motor in the Model 3 skipping the bigger standard S/X motor, just may do the trick for both optimal efficiency AND the promised sub-6 second dash, being on the rear axle.
�

According to what I can find looking at the BMS, the current limit in the new 100kWh packs is 1750A. It's about 1500A for a Ludicrous 85 and early 90, and 1600A for the newer 90's. The older non-ludicrous 85's were 1300A. The increase from 1300A was due to the new hybrid active fuse technology, and to get it from 1500A to 1600A took doubling the "bond wires" that connect the cells to the bus.

I don't see the S getting much faster because now we are hitting physics limits with current tire technology, even if Tesla wanted to beef up the inverter and motor more.
�

Ingineer said: ?

I don't see the S getting much faster because now we are hitting physics limits with current tire technology, even if Tesla wanted to beef up the inverter and motor more.
Click to expand...

No,
See https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1696858/
�

JeffK said: ?

No,
See https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1696858/
Click to expand...

Note that the Model S has a significantly longer braking distance than the cars in the example. 108 ft for 60-0mph as far as I can find: Porsche Panamera GTS vs. Tesla Model S Track Test
So for that car, 2.5 0-60 as now claimed is a good bit closer to the physical limit of the tires.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Note that the Model S has a significantly longer braking distance than the cars in the example. 108 ft for 60-0mph as far as I can find: Porsche Panamera GTS vs. Tesla Model S Track Test
So for that car, 2.5 0-60 as now claimed is a good bit closer to the physical limit of the tires.
Click to expand...

That's due to the weight of the car and inertia, not a physical limitation of the tires themselves.

A simple example:
Place the same tires on a faster car... is that car limited to 2.5 seconds?
Of course not.
�

Yes, the Model S is a heavy car. I don't see it getting too much faster with the OEM tires.
�

Ingineer said: ?

Yes, the Model S is a heavy car. I don't see it getting too much faster with the OEM tires.
Click to expand...

You can think anything you like... point is if you put those same tires on a Model 3 and give it the same motors and the same power and tell me it's not faster than the P100DL (even with OEM tires).
�

lklundin said: ?

Well, I hope Tesla makes a 'maximum range' version of Model 3, per your line-up a
Model 3 100D
(with the dual motors allowing for a bit of extra range).
Click to expand...

I hope so also. I just want the most powerful M3 option with the longest range.
�

Red Sage said: ?

Actually, the proper course, should Tesla Motors achieve $90 or less per kWh before the end of this year is to have a 100 kWh base capacity. What Elon said was that there was a sweet spot over 250 miles and likely between 300 to 350 miles that would make EVs acceptable for almost anyone. Better to hit that mark affordably sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

What benefit is there to anyone in spending a bunch of needless money, to compete with competition that doesn't exist, to provide an arbitrary amount of battery in a base model car that far exceeds the what 95% of people actually need?

A hypothetical $5k reduction in base price would do far more to spur EV adoption than $5k in additional batteries at this point.

Sure, add as much range as feasible at the higher end, available as an option - but I see zero benefit to making that compulsory for everyone. Choice is good.
�

ucmndd said: ?

What benefit is there to anyone in spending a bunch of needless money, to compete with competition that doesn't exist, to provide an arbitrary amount of battery in a base model car that far exceeds the what 95% of people actually need?
Click to expand...

It's more of a perceived need (bigger is better). The best way to spur mass EV adoption is not just about price, but the ability to fully replace the typical family ICE.

Thanks for the dislike Topher, but it doesn't change the facts and years of consumer research on the matter.
�

In a way, if Tesla were to really push for big batteries in modestly priced/optioned cars, they'd kill the competition. Until the competition manages similar /kWh costs, any car they make is going to have way less range (slower dash), or a way higher price. Or, both.
To open the door to competitors, they'd make their cars very attractive, but doable to compete against.
But as long as Tesla can't grow fast enough to meet demand, especially of Model 3 reservations for now, they will not care much about the competition losing faith in a profitable future in EV's.

Even if the competition had the /kWh costs all lined up to compete, or join the EV classes defined by Tesla models and options, to catch up with a charger network is going to be a costly matter. Such a risky project to take on, also from a reputation point of view.
Say, BMW starts building the network, committing billions. Merc could decide to buy into the Tesla SC network, and be in business overnight with new branding, and BMW and others locked out.
�

JeffK said: ?

It's more of a perceived need (bigger is better). The best way to spur mass EV adoption is not just about price, but the ability to fully replace the typical family ICE.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not just about price, but I maintain my position that a real decrease in price will be a greater catalyst for EV adoption than meeting a perceived need in range at the lowest end of the model/option spectrum.
�

Red Sage said: ?

Actually, the proper course, should Tesla Motors achieve $90 or less per kWh before the end of this year is to have a 100 kWh base capacity. What Elon said was that there was a sweet spot over 250 miles and likely between 300 to 350 miles that would make EVs acceptable for almost anyone. Better to hit that mark affordably sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Tesla's goal is not to sell cars that are "affordable". That's a relative term depending on income. Tesla needs to be PROFITABLE at all levels. The only way they are going to get to a $35,000 base car is to design the smallest pack available to hit the target miles.

Any cost reductions in current pack technology is how they are going to get to $35K with some margin for profitability. If the new cells and pack saves $5K from current pack in the model S, well that how they save $5K from a $66K model S60 downward to 35K.

Getting back on topic. The media was quoting the P100DL 0-100kph as 2.7s, so I'm guessing the model 3 to be in the low 3's.
�

ucmndd said: ?

Lol. I'll take that bet (300 that is, 250 is more reasonable but still a stretch).

Elon is on record saying EVs don't need more range at this point, they need to be cheaper.
Click to expand...

When you think about, Elon is probably right, or at least getting close to being right. I remember back 42 years ago this month, when I bought a new 1974 Buick La Sabre (big V8 of course) that got around 11 mpg. It had a 25.9 gallon tank, which when full could take the car around 285 miles. We weren't complaining about range then, and I wasn't complaining about how often I had to fill up the tank. Then again, fuel was less than 40 cents/gallon
�

It makes sense to aim with Model 3 at outperforming the likes of the Bolt for the minimal configuration. Anything beyond that is a waste of cash to those who don't need any more. Those who do, canget the upgrade. Can Volt/Bolt buyers select the 300 mile option? Even if they could, at what price would it come?
If the battery is on the small side, or you end up hauling a big horse trailer around, you'll have a harder time making it between (present day) super charger options, and find yourself spending hugely longer needing to charge well beyond 80%. We even see supercharging guru Bjorn Nyland getting caught out by this even with his XP90DL and a boat or box trailer. With a smalll battery or high consumption you need a much bigger battery or twice as many stops so you can charge only to 40-50% and not waste time hanging about.
When Model 3 hits the roads, no company will have a faster charging option on the market most likely. Not even Porsche with a single 800V charger at their headquarters for their hypothetically lighning fast charging Mission E concept. So there is no competition in terms of charging, and none in sight for range. Public opinion and real life practicality are the real obstacles. Bjorn showed that the limited range of a XP90DL (flagship car) makes hauling big loads quite a task. The deficit in average traveling speed is vastly reduced compared to fossil cars, even if the Tesla is the kind of overtakes and can out-drag a sporty Alfa while towing such an Alfa on a trailer.
There IS a market for longer range cars (see how many on here made the jump to pay 5 figures for 10-15% more range, like a bigger gas tank), and if Tesla can make it more affordable to have it, many will happily pay extra.

Range while initially the perceived main achilles heel of BEV's, seems to be transforming to a bragging right. "Huh hargh, hi dee ho neighbor, I see you got yourself the 100?". Even if it barely leaves the drive way. At least the 100 now adds a bit of performance (lots of mystery how much really, especially beyond the first 2.5 seconds). Eventually motors will probably not keep up with battery discharge rates. And don't you go calling me a naysayer that a family sedan doesn't need more than 500kW, even if the battery can offer a MW discharge rate all day long. Before you know it, governments will find way to tax BEV's te way they tax heavy/thirsty gas guzzlers.
�

JeffK said: ?

You can think anything you like... point is if you put those same tires on a Model 3 and give it the same motors and the same power and tell me it's not faster than the P100DL (even with OEM tires).
Click to expand...

I was referring to MS, not M3. Of course M3 would be faster if it has lower mass all other things being equal. But I doubt Tesla is going to put (or even be able to put) the same pack in the M3, so it will probably have a lower peak output.
�

Ingineer said: ?

I was referring to MS, not M3. Of course M3 would be faster if it has lower mass all other things being equal. But I doubt Tesla is going to put (or even be able to put) the same pack in the M3, so it will probably have a lower peak output.
Click to expand...

Ingineer said: ?

I don't see the S getting much faster because now we are hitting physics limits with current tire technology
Click to expand...

You were referring to the limitations of the tires... I was suggesting we aren't there yet.
�

JeffK said: ?

You were referring to the limitations of the tires... I was suggesting we aren't there yet.
Click to expand...

Note that I said "S". What I mean is; due to the mass of the S with current OEM tire limits, I don't see it getting much quicker acceleration times. On my 1500A limited S, it still struggles with grip sometimes. Now on the 100kWh packs it's up to 1750A, which is a lot more power. Again, assuming the current mass. I know this is OT for the M3, but we don't yet know the mass of the M3, so it's just a data point.
�

I highly doubt the Model 3 will ever be faster than the fastest Model S. That will cannibalize their sales of the Model S and nobody will ever do that to themselves.
�

EVS Motors said: ?

I highly doubt the Model 3 will ever be faster than the fastest Model S. That will cannibalize their sales of the Model S and nobody will ever do that to themselves.
Click to expand...

Like when Apple made the iPhone and totally destroyed the market for their most popular product ever, the iPod. Boy, was that ever dumb.
�

Right now Model S and X cannot be made fast enough, it seems. The whole deal about Model 3 is being fast to produce. They want to make 500,000 3's a year versus 80-100,000 S+X over 2016.
If a Model 3 can reduce the Model S waiting list by 1, that's a win. For all we know, the profit margin (in dollars) may be similar or even greater for a highly spec'd $60k Model 3 vs. a more basic $70k Model S.
And since the 3 is built quicker, they can serve 2 or more customers in the same time as a single S. Tesla won't lose sleep over cannibalized S sales.
�

EVS Motors said: ?

I highly doubt the Model 3 will ever be faster than the fastest Model S. That will cannibalize their sales of the Model S and nobody will ever do that to themselves.
Click to expand...

Except that the MS and M3 are not competing against each other. They will always make each model of their cars as nice as they can, to do otherwise would be stupid and self-defeating.
�

EVS Motors said: ?

I highly doubt the Model 3 will ever be faster than the fastest Model S. That will cannibalize their sales of the Model S and nobody will ever do that to themselves.
Click to expand...

It has been mentioned before that the BMW M3 has a quicker 0-60 time than the M5, despite being significantly cheaper. I don't think it's out of the realm of reason. The Model S can be marketed on other aspects, like its size (for those who want a more spacious sedan), or more luxurious/ventilated seats, better sound system, etc.
�

ohmman said: ?

It has been mentioned before that the BMW M3 has a quicker 0-60 time than the M5, despite being significantly cheaper. I don't think it's out of the realm of reason. The Model S can be marketed on other aspects, like its size (for those who want a more spacious sedan), or more luxurious/ventilated seats, better sound system, etc.
Click to expand...

that's how I see it also - Model S differentiators are size and luxury level (and possibly new tech as that becomes available... ) there's no way Tesla is going to artificially limit the speed on the 3. That's just now how they think.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

The 100kWh pack is now kept only to the S+X PL customers for the foreseeable future.
With Model 3, although the first 300-400,000 are already sold, it would be nice to make the largest pack, if it's properly large, also available for base models. Non-P, non-D, non-L.
Click to expand...

I think that Tesla Motors would gladly make every single car dual motor from now on if they could make the numbers work for what will be base prices. The original Model S 60 was $69,900 while the Model S 70D was $75,000 and was joined by a Model S 70 a few months later at $70,000. Now, about a year later, the Model S 60 is $66,000 but holds a software limited 75 kWh capacity battery pack.

There may be a contingent within Tesla Motors that believes it is necessary to allow at least one rear wheel drive variant of their sedans to be offered. The lower entry level price point is the primary argument in their favor. But I get the impression that Elon and JB would prefer to make sure the highest capacity battery packs remain on Performance oriented cars and that mid-range vehicles be the primary sellers using a medium capacity battery pack instead to get 'enough' range. I strongly suspect that rear wheel drive will not be available for SUVs or Crossovers because of the need for as much range as possible through enhanced efficiency, improved safety and handling that inspires confidence behind the wheel, and the motivation to not be a poser vehicle that lacks basic functionality.

I think they were taken by surprise in learning that at each stage of Model S development the highest capacity battery pack has always been their best seller. I believe they had hoped people would be more price conscious instead and that was why the Model S 40 had been offered. Now that they know people are most concerned with having a minimum range above 200 miles, they will work to offer 'enough' capacity so that only a predictable few of them opt for maximum capacity. Because the goal is to sell as many cars as possible using the limited resource of battery cells they will have available each year, even with supplies coming from the Gigafactory. That said, I would not object to a 100 kWh battery pack capacity being the sole offering for Model ? at the outset, no matter the drive configuration, with others to come later.
�

lklundin said: ?

Well, I hope Tesla makes a 'maximum range' version of Model 3, per your line-up a
Model 3 100D
(with the dual motors allowing for a bit of extra range).
Click to expand...

I think that would happen, just as soon as there were a release of a Model ? P135D.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Actually, the efficiency seems to come more from the high efficiency front motor, rather than the dual motor aspect of it. One high efficiency motor in the Model 3 skipping the bigger standard S/X motor, just may do the trick for both optimal efficiency AND the promised sub-6 second dash, being on the rear axle.
Click to expand...

All of the motors that Tesla Motors offers are 'high efficiency' and optimally designed for their application. The difference in range between a Performance car of a given capacity and a 'D' version is less than 10%. That difference can be made up simply by not driving the Performance iteration quite as aggressively. It is the efficiency of the Driver that makes the difference.

Range per Charge at Constant 65 MPH:
_60 ___ 219 MI ___ 60D ___ 225 MI ___ 97.33%
_75 ___ 265 MI ___ 75D ___ 275 MI ___ 96.36%
90D ___ 302 MI ___ P90D __ 294 MI ___ 97.35%?

EPA Range Rating/Estimate:
_90D ___ 294 MI ___ P90D ___ 270 MI ___ 91.87%
100D ___ 343 MI ___ P100D __ 315 MI ___ 91.87%?

�

ucmndd said: ?

What benefit is there to anyone in spending a bunch of needless money, to compete with competition that doesn't exist, to provide an arbitrary amount of battery in a base model car that far exceeds the what 95% of people actually need?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should take a closer look at The Competition (1). Each of them has a minimum range over 400 miles in their base configuration (well, the Jaguar XE misses by 2 points and is at 398 instead). There is a certain benefit in being able to match and surpass them at a similar price point. And once Tesla Motors internal cost is below $90 per kWh, it is not 'needless money' being spent at all.

ucmndd said: ?

A hypothetical $5k reduction in base price would do far more to spur EV adoption than $5k in additional batteries at this point.
Click to expand...

So, you would prefer to just give away the money up front, instead of lowering internal costs? I would hypothesize that would end in disaster. I would prefer to get every single dime I could for a vehicle that is worth much more than the price it is offered for. The Competition (2) does the opposite, charging much more than their products are worth at every price point. There is no way a BMW 320i is actually worth more than $10,000 over the base price of a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord.

ucmndd said: ?

Sure, add as much range as feasible at the higher end, available as an option - but I see zero benefit to making that compulsory for everyone. Choice is good.
Click to expand...

The choice involved is in making sure anyone who is making an objective purchasing decision sees the Tesla Motors product as the best option and thereby is compelled to make the right choice to abandon ICE at all comparative price points.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Say, BMW starts building the network, committing billions.
Click to expand...

Assuming it costs about $400,000 to build the equivalent of an 8-bay Supercharger location... BMW would have to build at least 3,000 of them worldwide to reach even $1,200,000,000 in expenditures for those installations. For the sake of comparison, of the 698 Active Supercharger locations, 25 Under Construction, and 23 that are currently Permitted, 455 have less than 8 stalls. Even if all of them thus far were 8 stalls or more that would probably be just barely over $300,000,000 that Tesla Motors had spent on them thus far. It would take some time for BMW to spend 'billions' building out a charging network of their own. But the effort would be much appreciated.

Cloxxki said: ?

Merc could decide to buy into the Tesla SC network, and be in business overnight with new branding, and BMW and others locked out.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt that Tesla Motors would 'lock out' anyone by contract with any one partner in the Supercharger network. That does not fit The MISSION. The idea is to replace ICE vehicles entirely for the sake of transportation. So every company that would be willing would be allowed.
�

ucmndd said: ?

Of course it's not just about price, but I maintain my position that a real decrease in price will be a greater catalyst for EV adoption than meeting a perceived need in range at the lowest end of the model/option spectrum.
Click to expand...

In the US, price is important. That is why used car sales outnumbered new car sales in here by about 21,000,000 units in 2015. That said, this is no reason to offer discounted vehicle pricing. The average sale price of a new car is over $33,000 and the average for used cars is around $18,000.

Elon had an initial goal of $25,000 for a mass market vehicle. He has already stated there will be no need for Tesla Motors to offer a vehicle below the Model ? in their product lineup. It is a hard decision to make, but I agree. By the time Tesla Motors has the capacity and funding to profitably offer a new car that inexpensively, no one else on the market will be doing so. That is, I expect the base price for cars like the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord to climb over $25,000 well before 2025. Similarly, cars such as the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic will probably have a base price over $22,000 even sooner.

No one wants their new cars to be competing directly against the used car market the day they roll off the lot. Most major automobile manufacturers have already abandoned the sub-$15,000 price point, as they did the sub-$10,000 years ago. I would not be surprised if they also abandon the sub-$20,000 price point before 2020. With everything else on the market going up in price, if the base Model ? can steadily improve while maintaining a $35,000 price point for entry level, it will make for a compelling reason to switch to fully electric. Especially since the residual value of pre-owned ICE vehicles is destined to fall like a rock in the coming decade.
�

Ingineer said: ?

According to what I can find looking at the BMS, the current limit in the new 100kWh packs is 1750A. It's about 1500A for a Ludicrous 85 and early 90, and 1600A for the newer 90's. The older non-ludicrous 85's were 1300A. The increase from 1300A was due to the new hybrid active fuse technology, and to get it from 1500A to 1600A took doubling the "bond wires" that connect the cells to the bus.

I don't see the S getting much faster because now we are hitting physics limits with current tire technology, even if Tesla wanted to beef up the inverter and motor more.
Click to expand...

I see the S getting much faster and/or longer charging distances - with Tesla newer battery technology. It may not get faster with 18650''s but any newer battery technology could do it.

Hey, I have an idea. What if the MS adopted the battery technology that is going into the M3?
�

shokunin said: ?

Tesla's goal is not to sell cars that are "affordable".
Click to expand...

Elon Musk has been stating that Tesla Motors would release an 'affordable electric car' as their Generation III vehicle for over a decade. I agree with most of your statement, but I believe you misunderstand or are unaware of that stated goal. Here is evidence for your consideration:

"However, some readers may not be aware of the fact that our long term plan is to build a wide range of models, including affordably priced family cars." -- Elon Musk, August 2, 2006?

�

EVS Motors said: ?

I highly doubt the Model 3 will ever be faster than the fastest Model S. That will cannibalize their sales of the Model S and nobody will ever do that to themselves.
Click to expand...

Here we go again.

The competition of the M3 is not the MS.

If the BMW 3 series achieved 0-60 <2.5 I am confident that the M3 would beat it. Regardless of what the MS times are.
If the Audi A3/4 series achieved 0-60 <2.5 I am confident that the M3 would beat it. Regardless of what the MS times are.
........

That seems to be how Elon expresses his intent to be the competition in every way.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

It makes sense to aim with Model 3 at outperforming the likes of the Bolt for the minimal configuration.
Click to expand...

The Bolt? The Bolt isn't even in the same class as the M3.

The M3 is competing in the BMW 3 and AUDI 3/4 class of cars.

Didn't you see BMW stand up with it's 2 competing commercials to the M3?

The Bolt is competing with the Prius and other little buggy cars.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

It makes sense to aim with Model 3 at outperforming the likes of the Bolt for the minimal configuration. Anything beyond that is a waste of cash to those who don't need any more.
Click to expand...

You speak of a 'waste of cash'. I speak of a wasted opportunity, if Tesla Motors does not press every advantage their cars have over ICE vehicles to the utmost. Tesla needs to survive. To do that they must make an immediate impression that compels purchase. Surpassing the BOLT is not the goal. Replacing all ICE vehicles for transportation is the goal. The market that the BMW 3-Series competes in, even at over 400,000 units per year in the US alone, may well be rather limited compared to the one that a Toyota Camry or Corolla occupies. That is OK, because Tesla Motors does not yet have the capacity to directly attack those two very popular cars, but they WILL be able to target the 3-Series within the next two years, not only in the US, but worldwide. Since Tesla Motors is perceived as a Premium brand, and the 3-Series is the perennial best selling Premium passenger car in the world, it is entirely appropriate to take on that car. It is not a waste to prove that your product is better than the car that has laid claim to being 'The BEST in the World' for over three decades.
�

Ingineer said: ?

I was referring to MS, not M3. Of course M3 would be faster if it has lower mass all other things being equal. But I doubt Tesla is going to put (or even be able to put) the same pack in the M3, so it will probably have a lower peak output.
Click to expand...

The Tesla Model S is a larger, heavier, much more massive car than was the Tesla Roadster. The Roadster actually had more battery cells in its battery pack than did the Model S 85. And since October 9, 2014 the 3.7 second 0-60 MPH rating of the Roadster has been left in the dust by the Model S P85D -- for less money. The battery cells and battery management systems and cooling systems are the key. Released five years after the Model S, the Model ? will greatly benefit from advances in technology over time. It will not have to use 'the same pack' to soundly trounce its elder at all. The Model ? will use a newer one with higher capacity and greater output and improved efficiency per volume and weight as compared to any iteration of Model S to date.
�

EVS Motors said: ?

I highly doubt the Model 3 will ever be faster than the fastest Model S. That will cannibalize their sales of the Model S and nobody will ever do that to themselves.
Click to expand...

The Tesla Model S is too busy 'cannibalizing' the sales of AUDI A8L, BMW 7-Series, Jaguar XJ, Lexus LS, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and Porsche Panamera year in and year out to have the slightest worry over losing sales to its stablemate. So far this year the BMW 3-Series (45,660) is outselling the 7-Series (8,038) by a 5.68:1 ratio. Last year it outsold the BMW flagship by 10.17:1 instead. BMW doesn't care about that one whit. The Model ? is the goal for Tesla Motors, not an afterthought.
�

Red Sage said: ?

aggressively. It is the efficiency of the Driver that makes the difference.
Click to expand...

The 90D offers terrible performace compared to the 75D. +20% badge, +10% range.

If range differs 8-10 miles between P and non-P, at constant 65mph, where exactly is the driver in that equation?
I appreciate that for the EPA rating, the P sucks a lot more joules from the driver's right foot. But the difference with non-P according to that table, is inherent to the P hardware.
�

Red Sage said: ?

You speak of a 'waste of cash'. I speak of a wasted opportunity, if Tesla Motors does not press every advantage their cars have over ICE vehicles to the utmost.
Click to expand...

Are you intensionally misunderstanding me?
I've been advocating BIG range and high performance on here for a while now. But what's wrong making it an OPTION, while making true to the promise of a $35k 215 miles car wortyh of the Tesla badge?
I'm all for making Model 3 the best car possible. But toning it downf or those who seek that $35k Tesla is important for both Tesla, the fan base, and the leverage of BEV's on the market as a whole.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

The 90D offers terrible performace compared to the 75D. +20% badge, +10% range.

If range differs 8-10 miles between P and non-P, at constant 65mph, where exactly is the driver in that equation?
I appreciate that for the EPA rating, the P sucks a lot more joules from the driver's right foot. But the difference with non-P according to that table, is inherent to the P hardware.
Click to expand...

You are comparing batteries of different voltages and weights and you're looking at efficiency not performance.

Secondly, you cannot drive at a constant 65 mph velocity without first accelerating to that velocity.

You can read more about how the EPA does it's testing at
Detailed Test Information

Note the test details and any deviation from those will produce different results for range.
�

Jeff, I disagree.
If you have a small downhill you could hit 65 with a full battery. Anyway, do the math on how much it will matter in full charge range. Gotta be in the meter range.
The data is offered to me, I respond to it.
Whatever the reason, 50% of diminishing returns is not cool. The mass difference can't lead to more than a fraction a percent of range, surely? Especially at steady velocity.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Jeff, I disagree.
If you have a small downhill you could hit 65 with a full battery. Anyway, do the math on how much it will matter in full charge range. Gotta be in the meter range.
The data is offered to me, I respond to it.
Whatever the reason, 50% of diminishing returns is not cool. The mass difference can't lead to more than a fraction a percent of range, surely? Especially at steady velocity.
Click to expand...

From a stop you cannot get to 65 mph without acceleration of any kind whether from gravity or electric motors. If going downhill and your battery is full then you are still accelerating due to gravity and you have unlimited range at that moment in time and will continue to have unlimited range as long as you are still traveling downhill under no artificial propulsion. If power was used and the battery was no longer full then regen would restore you to full.

I guess I'm not understanding the point you are making. It seemed you were suggesting the driver as zero effect on range which is not the case and would only be the case on certain very rare conditions which are unlike real world driving scenarios.
�

JeffK said: ?

From a stop you cannot get to 65 mph without acceleration of any kind whether from gravity or electric motors. If going downhill and your battery is full then you are still accelerating due to gravity and you have unlimited range at that moment in time and will continue to have unlimited range as long as you are still traveling downhill under no artificial propulsion. If power was used and the battery was no longer full then regen would restore you to full.

I guess I'm not understanding the point you are making. It seemed you were suggesting the driver as zero effect on range which is not the case and would only be the case on certain very rare conditions which are unlike real world driving scenarios.
Click to expand...

You are overthinking the data it seems.
Data points are giving above for the range at a constant 65mph. Surely a modest temperature, no wind, sea level, average air density and no elevation are presumed. Pure cruise control range. Or, effectively available capacity divided by the Wh/km consumed at 65mph. The driver is of no influence. It could even be done in AP all the way, given the right road and traffic conditions.
And no, if you have a full charge and you do a 0-65mph in 3.0 seconds, it makes an unmesurable difference in range compared to someone taking 13 seconds to get there, 1/10th throttle. Once at 65mph, we engage cruise control and range mode anyway. There is ONE acceleration over 300 miles/500km, during 3 seconds at 500kW, that just doesn't impact range in a measurable way.

My point is that if you make the battery 20% bigger... Less than 20% heavier, less than 10% on 500kg probably as the 75kWh has dummy cells and all the cooling in place, it's a bad deal to only get 10% more range. Now probably Tesla overstates the 90's capacity more than it does the 75's. But still, a very bad trade-off.
That it happens in the EPA range is understandable with it accelerations going on, but cruising speed, I'd feel ripped off after having paid the extra for 20% of claimed capacity.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

You are overthinking the data it seems.
Data points are giving above for the range at a constant 65mph. Surely a modest temperature, no wind, sea level, average air density and no elevation are presumed. Pure cruise control range. Or, effectively available capacity divided by the Wh/km consumed at 65mph. The driver is of no influence. It could even be done in AP all the way, given the right road and traffic conditions.
And no, if you have a full charge and you do a 0-65mph in 3.0 seconds, it makes an unmesurable difference in range compared to someone taking 13 seconds to get there, 1/10th throttle. Once at 65mph, we engage cruise control and range mode anyway. There is ONE acceleration over 300 miles/500km, during 3 seconds at 500kW, that just doesn't impact range in a measurable way.

My point is that if you make the battery 20% bigger... Less than 20% heavier, less than 10% on 500kg probably as the 75kWh has dummy cells and all the cooling in place, it's a bad deal to only get 10% more range. Now probably Tesla overstates the 90's capacity more than it does the 75's. But still, a very bad trade-off.
That it happens in the EPA range is understandable with it accelerations going on, but cruising speed, I'd feel ripped off after having paid the extra for 20% of claimed capacity.
Click to expand...

Yes, range is not linear with increased battery capacity due to weight... This is well known and not something hidden from the owner/buyer. It's not a design flaw, it's simply a matter of physics. It's the very reason Elon has said, besides cost, that they haven't made a 500 mi version. If you magically had more energy dense cells for the higher capacity version to eliminate your perceived bad trade off then you'd obviously put them in the lesser battery version too and have the same issue all over again where the range increase is not linear. If you were to extrapolate with current cell chemistry to give yourself some extreme capacity, you could eventually load up a vehicle so much that it's too heavy to move/handle properly as a car.

Also, the packs are arranged differently, 400 volts for the high end battery and 350 volts for the less battery. Right out of the gate you can provide quicker acceleration from the higher end battery as well as quicker charging.

So, with the 90 kWh battery over the 75 kWh you get:

20% more capacity

13.5% more (EPA estimated) range

Faster top speed

Faster charging

Quicker acceleration.

Range increase is not exactly linear, but I'm not sure why potential buyers would consider that a bad trade off with all the added benefits. In addition, with less aggressive driving you have the opportunity to have a much greater increase in range with the 90 kWh version vs the 75 kWh and that is totally up to the driving habits of the driver him/herself.
�

If you put 20% more cells in, and consider that they are replacing dummies, and all the cooling plumbing is already there, how much weight does that add? Weight only affects rolling resistance, proportionate to weight. The relative weight increase is just tiny. for (claimed) +15kWh.

I've read that the 90kWh really is a 86kWh, before the safety reserve at the bottom is deducted. If the 75 then further really is a 77, I can see the lacklustre range upgrade making sense.
The 75 may NEED to be overstated actually, as the 70 also exists. The restricted 60 is apparently a real (available) 60, the 70 is a good bit more, and the 75 exist.
�

More on topic for a moment.

If I were Tesla, I'd consider preparing a Model 3 prototype with the performance of the fastest they'll make in 2018. Say, a P100DL.
And just before the next Model 3 unveil event, bring that to a drag racing event, as a normal citizen participant. Along with a base model (say, 60 RWD). The 100 could sandbag it a few rounds and then at the end of the event do a sub-10 second 1/4 mile. then, no public comments about it despite the surprise performance going viral. And then at the unveil announcing that that car is meant to be as close to a stock version as they could get it. Real performance.
�

I am so pleased with the option, for OTHER people" of a $35,000 base Model 3, but for myself, I want...ALL the performance upgrades. I will NOT execute my deposit UNLESS the version I am to receive can at least match the acceleration of my current 2015 P85DL. I am quite willing to pay for those performance upgrades, e.g. even +20K for bigger battery AND (beyond) Ludicrous acceleration. Of course I would also order the upgrades to the interior and be happy to pay $$$ for a better exterior color option. IMHO, I would expect that my "loaded performance Model 3" would total out close to $100K, but that is MORE expensive than a BMW M3 and LESS expensive than a loaded Model S. The $$$ is in the bank just waiting for Elon to accept the order. 8 - )
�

George Parrott said: ?

I am so pleased with the option, for OTHER people" of a $35,000 base Model 3, but for myself, I want...ALL the performance upgrades. I will NOT execute my deposit UNLESS the version I am to receive can at least match the acceleration of my current 2015 P85DL. I am quite willing to pay for those performance upgrades, e.g. even +20K for bigger battery AND (beyond) Ludicrous acceleration. Of course I would also order the upgrades to the interior and be happy to pay $$$ for a better exterior color option. IMHO, I would expect that my "loaded performance Model 3" would total out close to $100K, but that is MORE expensive than a BMW M3 and LESS expensive than a loaded Model S. The $$$ is in the bank just waiting for Elon to accept the order. 8 - )
Click to expand...

A fully loaded Model S then, with a smaller body and interior? Apart from the higher production volumes, that is going to be costly indeed
Is the smaller+less luxury size of the Model 3 even worth it to you at $100k?

With you, I hope the highest performance option is going to be Model S shattering. Shaming the upcoming generation of hypercars. That would get attention.
�

George Parrott said: ?

I am so pleased with the option, for OTHER people" of a $35,000 base Model 3, but for myself, I want...ALL the performance upgrades. I will NOT execute my deposit UNLESS the version I am to receive can at least match the acceleration of my current 2015 P85DL. I am quite willing to pay for those performance upgrades, e.g. even +20K for bigger battery AND (beyond) Ludicrous acceleration. Of course I would also order the upgrades to the interior and be happy to pay $$$ for a better exterior color option. IMHO, I would expect that my "loaded performance Model 3" would total out close to $100K, but that is MORE expensive than a BMW M3 and LESS expensive than a loaded Model S. The $$$ is in the bank just waiting for Elon to accept the order. 8 - )
Click to expand...

Great post, but I actually doubt you will have to pay more for a fully loaded Tesla Model ? than anyone would for a fully loaded BMW M3. Please note that Mercedes-AMG S-Class, Alpina B7, and Porsche Panamera Turbo S all cost considerably more than a Model S in their maxed out configurations. The Model S is a bargain compared to its direct competitors, as well as to Supercars and Hypercars. So will be the Model ?.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Is the smaller+less luxury size of the Model 3 even worth it to you at $100k?
Click to expand...

Many years ago, a buddy of mine claimed that the Acura NSX was overpriced, not worth the money. His reasoning was that he could get a Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 for several thousands less. I pointed out the problem was not that the NSX cost too much, but that the 3000GT didn't cost enough.

There is a difference between cost and worth. The Tesla Model ? in any configuration will undoubtedly be worth far more than it will actually cost. Be prepared to see some traditional automobile manufacturers crying 'foul' and accusing Tesla Motors of 'technology dumping', claiming that there is 'no way' they could possibly build such capable cars at a profit. I expect they will be very surprised after going over Tesla's books -- when they learn it absolutely IS possible.
�

Well, critics could also claim it's just an expensive box on wheels powered by nothing but software. Tiny e-motors, more software than hardware. No engine making craftsmanship, no injection tuning or whatever nonsense. So the box and wheels are $15k, who in their right mind pays $20k for a bit of software? They are making Apple-like profits for crying out loud!
Not my opinions, but possible also. Technology dumping, that would be a nice insult. We'll see!

Yesterday I wondered. If they are going to make so many Model 3's anyway, why not a convertible? Or an outright (extravagant) club sport version, like the Golf GTI Clubsport S / Honda Civic Type R / Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy-R. really updated chassis, bucket seat and stuff, not just bigger motor/battery/fuses.

2017 supposedly will see the Electric GT racing series in converted P85's.
I wouldn't mind if Tesla would spend their first marketing dollars on a 2018 Tesla Model 3 Cup series. Really optimized spec race cars, lapping circuits at speeds similar to GT3 and DTM.
Electric GT if it really happens will be a lot of fun, but unless they really did something about the cooling, how much power will these cars produce from the second minute of the race? 150kW? I don't know exactly what a P85 is capable of when pushed.
Another thing to be curious about, how much better the new colling tech on the P100DL will work under continued racing strain. Could be worse, just to focus on more cell space, but could also be much better as a bonus. Next weak link would still be the stators I suppose. For lap times, weight much be greatly reduced. If the battery is just going to get hot and limit power, then RWD is possibly faster by being lighter under braking and cornering. Although, wiki states as little as 80kg extra for the D?
The race cars might take advantage of more racing specific batteries. Fewer cycles, more kWh/kg? If such exists. Tesla is not pushing the kW/kg as well as cost, aiming more for affordable range. In racing or �1M+ supercars, cost matters less, it's all about kW/kg for hybrids, and kWh/kg for BEV supercars of which there only is the Rimac right now. What Rimac has done exactly, I don't know.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Yesterday I wondered. If they are going to make so many Model 3's anyway, why not a convertible? Or an outright (extravagant) club sport version, like the Golf GTI Clubsport S / Honda Civic Type R / Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy-R. really updated chassis, bucket seat and stuff, not just bigger motor/battery/fuses.[/QUOTE]
Because developing additional models takes people, money, and time. Tesla is having a hard enough time getting the Model 3 out the door ASAP.
Click to expand...

�

That's fair. See what the Falcon Wing Doors did to them.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Well, critics could also claim it's just an expensive box on wheels powered by nothing but software. Tiny e-motors, more software than hardware. No engine making craftsmanship, no injection tuning or whatever nonsense. So the box and wheels are $15k, who in their right mind pays $20k for a bit of software? They are making Apple-like profits for crying out loud!
Click to expand...

Well, there is also the battery, I hear those are fairly expensive....
�

Cloxxki said: ?

Well, critics could also claim it's just an expensive box on wheels powered by nothing but software. Tiny e-motors, more software than hardware. No engine making craftsmanship, no injection tuning or whatever nonsense. So the box and wheels are $15k, who in their right mind pays $20k for a bit of software? They are making Apple-like profits for crying out loud!
Not my opinions, but possible also. Technology dumping, that would be a nice insult. We'll see!

Yesterday I wondered. If they are going to make so many Model 3's anyway, why not a convertible? Or an outright (extravagant) club sport version, like the Golf GTI Clubsport S / Honda Civic Type R / Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy-R. really updated chassis, bucket seat and stuff, not just bigger motor/battery/fuses.

2017 supposedly will see the Electric GT racing series in converted P85's.
I wouldn't mind if Tesla would spend their first marketing dollars on a 2018 Tesla Model 3 Cup series. Really optimized spec race cars, lapping circuits at speeds similar to GT3 and DTM.
Electric GT if it really happens will be a lot of fun, but unless they really did something about the cooling, how much power will these cars produce from the second minute of the race? 150kW? I don't know exactly what a P85 is capable of when pushed.
Another thing to be curious about, how much better the new colling tech on the P100DL will work under continued racing strain. Could be worse, just to focus on more cell space, but could also be much better as a bonus. Next weak link would still be the stators I suppose. For lap times, weight much be greatly reduced. If the battery is just going to get hot and limit power, then RWD is possibly faster by being lighter under braking and cornering. Although, wiki states as little as 80kg extra for the D?
The race cars might take advantage of more racing specific batteries. Fewer cycles, more kWh/kg? If such exists. Tesla is not pushing the kW/kg as well as cost, aiming more for affordable range. In racing or �1M+ supercars, cost matters less, it's all about kW/kg for hybrids, and kWh/kg for BEV supercars of which there only is the Rimac right now. What Rimac has done exactly, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I would say let critics be critics. Prove them wrong in the numbers and/facts. If they call a Tesla a software driven box..... let them think that. You certainly don't want those folks to have any more information than that.
�

Cloxxki said: ?

If they are going to make so many Model 3's anyway, why not a convertible?
Click to expand...

People don't actually want convertibles. Here's an old article from 2014:
Convertible Car Sales Have Plunged as Image of Fun and Freedom Dims

People want trucks and SUVs and that's what Tesla is going for in the next few years.
�

JeffK said: ?

People don't actually want convertibles.
Click to expand...

Apparently I'm not "People"
�

[FLOCK]. OK...

Cloxxki said: ?

Well, critics could also claim it's just an expensive box on wheels powered by nothing but software. Tiny e-motors, more software than hardware. No engine making craftsmanship, no injection tuning or whatever nonsense. So the box and wheels are $15k, who in their right mind pays $20k for a bit of software? They are making Apple-like profits for crying out loud!
Not my opinions, but possible also. Technology dumping, that would be a nice insult. We'll see!
Click to expand...

Every vehicle is a 'box on wheels' at its heart. That is part of the reason why there are so many configurations that mimic each other. And the price is worth it when 'nothing but software' allows an electric vehicle to kick everyone else's butt, pistons and all, no matter the hardware brought to bear.

I don't give a flaming fig fart about 'craftsmanship' in a modern automobile. What stirs my heart is engineering. Tesla Motors' automobiles are engineered, not crafted. Think of it as the difference between being disciplined rather than regimented. Craftsmanship should be a priority for a $2,000,000 wristwatch that sells 10 units per year. Engineering allows 1,000,000 people to buy $20 wristwatches. Craftsmanship is often paired with exclusivity. Engineering makes it possible to manufacture at production levels that ensure ubiquity.

The BMW 320i is hardly more capable than the Toyota Camry LE. Both are boxes on wheels. One has a rear wheel drive configuration and a reputation for 'sportiness' that somehow commands around a $10,000 premium, while the other has a front wheel drive configuration and a reputation for reliability. Both are powered by inline 4-cylinder motors that produce 180 HP or less. I am confident that the 'bit of software' in a base Tesla Model ? will be more than enough to thoroughly embarrass both of them on both fronts.

The 'technology dumping' argument is a standard issue response from entrenched automobile manufacturers who seek to maintain a monopoly on a territory by accusing newcomers of wrongdoing. More often than not, it is a strategy that fails all logical challenges. That doesn't matter so much, because it is meant primarily as a delaying tactic. The presumption is that if you can distract an opponent long enough, you might be able to catch up, and better yet, by at least temporarily halting their operations they will run out of money before they can really hurt your own business. It's all about timing.

Cloxxki said: ?

Yesterday I wondered. If they are going to make so many Model 3's anyway, why not a convertible? Or an outright (extravagant) club sport version, like the Golf GTI Clubsport S / Honda Civic Type R / Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy-R. really updated chassis, bucket seat and stuff, not just bigger motor/battery/fuses.
Click to expand...

Because Tesla Motors places Safety as a primary concern in vehicle design, each and every vehicle configuration must be engineered from the ground up to ensure that the desired result is achieved. Never mind the fact that due to the skateboard configuration, it is nigh impossible to flip a Tesla. What matters is that current crash regulations require that a rooftop be able to support something like five times the weight of the vehicle in crush tests. With a heavy battery pack that may be extremely difficult to manage with a true Convertible. Beyond that issue is that all the crash resistance systems are designed to work in concert with each other throughout the frame of a vehicle. So crumple zones for a Convertible design would necessarily be completely different from either a Sedan or Coupe, because of the missing rooftop, whose structure contributes to structural and torsional rigidity. Long gone are the days when you could just cut off the top, erect a ragtop, and call it a day.

I'm not a big fan of most 'pocket rocket' or 'hot hatch' vehicle designs. Apparently I'm not alone in that assessment among Americans. Check the US sales figures for the AUDI A3 and Lexus CT 200h for proof. Tesla Motors absolutely must be successful in its home territory. They can do that by offering vehicle configurations that are popular here as a priority. Besides, I'm much more impressed by the rally car inspired designs from Peugeot and Renault than anything ever seen as a Volkswagen Golf or Ford Focus. I don't care how capable those cars are, they are still UGLY. Tesla Motors should not offer uglified econobox designs -- EVER.

Cloxxki said: ?

2017 supposedly will see the Electric GT racing series in converted P85's.
I wouldn't mind if Tesla would spend their first marketing dollars on a 2018 Tesla Model 3 Cup series. Really optimized spec race cars, lapping circuits at speeds similar to GT3 and DTM.
Electric GT if it really happens will be a lot of fun, but unless they really did something about the cooling, how much power will these cars produce from the second minute of the race? 150kW? I don't know exactly what a P85 is capable of when pushed.
Click to expand...

'Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday' is the way it's supposed to be, right? Well, Tesla Motors won't need to directly use racing as a means to advertise their wares for a long time, if ever. It will have to be up to outsiders to develop racing teams for their cars, instead.

Cloxxki said: ?

Another thing to be curious about, how much better the new colling tech on the P100DL will work under continued racing strain. Could be worse, just to focus on more cell space, but could also be much better as a bonus. Next weak link would still be the stators I suppose. For lap times, weight much be greatly reduced. If the battery is just going to get hot and limit power, then RWD is possibly faster by being lighter under braking and cornering. Although, wiki states as little as 80kg extra for the D?
Click to expand...

Racing strain is not a concern for Tesla Motors, because they will not have a manufacturer sponsored team for a very long time, if ever. Racing teams work great as a means to put young engineers directly into the fire and challenge them to work under harsh conditions. All Tesla Motors' engineers are already in the fire on their regular jobs, so there is no further benefit to be gained by taking them away from their normal work.

The goals for racing vehicles are different than for street cars. A race car can be broken down and entirely rebuilt after every race, and potentially after every heat during an event. If something breaks on a race car, it is immediately replaced, as multiple sets of components are always on hand for a well funded team. A race car has to at most hold together for a maximum of around 600 miles or so, not counting cross country or endurance races. Because of that, it can be pushed to levels that might actually damage the race car -- thereby requiring that mandatory rebuild once the race is complete. A street car has none of those luxuries. It is expected to last for well over 100,000 miles as a bare minimum using the original drivetrain, and Tesla Motors wants them to last 1,000,000+ miles if possible. A street car has to deal with different driving styles, a wider variety of weather conditions, and a whole lot of terrain changes.

When it comes to cooling technology, the motors that Tesla uses are already liquid cooled. ICE vehicles operate between around 200 degrees Fahrenheit through 500 degrees Fahrenheit, a 300 degree window, to keep them 'cool'. The optimum operating temperature for a Tesla battery pack is between 35 degrees Fahrenheit and 95 degrees Fahrenheit, a 60 degree window, instead. For my money, that means the cooling system is already SUPERIOR to that of an ICE vehicle. Because to my knowledge there is not one single ICE vehicle that operates at peak efficiency while at room temperature. Beyond that point, a Tesla can still operate at reduced power up to about 120 degrees or so, the system is simply smart enough to NOT let you kill the car by exceeding 130 degrees.

Cloxxki said: ?

The race cars might take advantage of more racing specific batteries. Fewer cycles, more kWh/kg? If such exists. Tesla is not pushing the kW/kg as well as cost, aiming more for affordable range. In racing or �1M+ supercars, cost matters less, it's all about kW/kg for hybrids, and kWh/kg for BEV supercars of which there only is the Rimac right now. What Rimac has done exactly, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I doubt that a change in battery cells or battery packs would be necessary. Just a change to software, and a disclaimer that the lifespan of the battery pack as a whole might be greatly reduced. Customers for such a vehicle must be fully aware they are risking destroying their car during what they might consider 'normal' operation. I'm pretty sure that Nissan and Porsche issue similar warnings regarding warranty coverage going 'poof' upon track usage. It is very likely that a 'poof' clause exists in your insurance coverage too, when it comes to running full tilt at a race track. If you decide to run any street car on a race track you do so with the full knowledge that if you break it, it must be fixed on your own dime. Period.

Rimac built an incredibly impractical two seater race car out of exotic materials using quad electric motors and a 93 kWh battery pack mounted longitudinally for a 1,950 kg curb weight.
�

JeffK said: ?

People don't actually want convertibles. Here's an old article from 2014:
Convertible Car Sales Have Plunged as Image of Fun and Freedom Dims

People want trucks and SUVs and that's what Tesla is going for in the next few years.
Click to expand...

Well over two decades ago, I worked for an architectural firm in Santa Monica. My direct Supervisor there drove a convertible, an older Mercedes-Benz SL I guess it was... I noticed that it always had the top up. So I asked him why, in Sunny Southern California, he didn't take advantage of the convertible top he had likely paid a premium to have. He pointed out that he was balding and that with the top down he would get sunburn and that he didn't want to wear a hat... He said he only drove with the top down on overcast days because he didn't like the wind.

I was like, ...?

Anyway, since then I have continued to marvel at the number of people here who constantly drive their convertibles with the top UP on sunny days. Women say they put the top up because they don't want to mess up their hair. Guys say they drive convertibles when cruising the beach or boulevard, so that they can be seen -- parade style -- not so that they can see better out of the car. And this is also why convertibles sold here all have air conditioning too. And it doesn't matter if it is a classic manual ragtop or fully articulated and electrified hardtop, just about everyone here drives with the top UP all the time.

This was particularly hard for me to accept. Because really? Despite what they show on television, most automobile purchases here are extremely boring and conservative. Sure, I've seen all sorts of sports cars, supercars, and even hypercars on the streets... From Lamborghini Diablo, Ferrari F40, and VECTOR W8 all the way through Tesla Model X, McLaren P1 (someone around the corner from me has two of them), and BMW i8. But most people here buy sedans, minivans, SUVs, pickup trucks, and panel vans. And those are typically rather monochrome purchases in Black, White, Silver, Grey/Gray, or Blue. Take a look at some old episodes of 'Perry Mason' and you'll see they make it seem as if everyone in Los Angeles drives a convertible Chevrolet (of course, they did sponsor the show) and that they drive with the top down all the time. The reality is far from that.

Apparently convertible buyers in Los Angeles are always expecting rain.
�

This conversation makes me think of when I was in Corte Madera shopping yesterday. In the row where I was parked, my Model S was the only non-SUV or Jeep (there was one Wrangler) out of about 20 cars. If I included all of the other rows in the parking lot, there were at least 50% high-riding cars (mostly SUV/CUVs but some Jeeps and pickups.. but this is Marin County, so not a lot of trucks). It really got me thinking about the market for those high-riding vehicles and the Model X.

I didn't see a single convertible, by the way.
�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Hai, 26 tháng 12, 2016

Sub 3 seconds for Model 3 DL part 2

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét