May 18, 2016
JeffK I'm looking for opinions as to why the range on the base model is (at least) 215 miles.
215 is a rather specific number.
Do you think this was a result of testing?
Do you think it was set as a design goal instead of 200?
Or do you think it's a complete misdirection and the true range of the base model is much higher?
If it's a result of testing then they already know exactly what capacity battery they'll be using on the base model. It's surprising how few leaks there have been regarding the model 3.�
May 18, 2016
voip-ninja They already have fully working prototypes and probably have a very good idea of what the final battery and powertrain will be possible of. There is also a safety margin built into all of their vehicles to make sure owners can't "brick" the battery pack.
So I'd say when EM says that the base model will have "at least" 215 mile range their confidence is very high for that number and at release it could even be slightly higher.
There is no way that the true range of the base model is "much higher" since we now know the base model will have a <60kw battery. If you want more range you will need to pony up for a bigger battery just like on all of their other EVs.�
May 18, 2016
callmesam Since you invited opinions:
1. It is likely that Tesla knows the weight of the vehicle and the size of the base model battery. They can do the math and have software that emulates the 5 cycle test that sets that range figure.
2. They are likely to have performed SOME practical testing, but unlikely that it's based on extensive real-world testing.
3. No misdirection. The Model S60 had a range of 208 until it was discontinued. I think they wanted to make it bigger than that. I also think that there will be at least one larger battery size that will extend the range of the Model 3 at least as far as the S90D.�
May 18, 2016
JeffK I'm waiting for a Steve Jobs style "one last thing" moment.�
May 18, 2016
techmaven They have to have a certain amount of range in order for people to use the Supercharger network, which is spaced about 120-140 miles apart. Too low of a range and people can't use the Supercharger network, even when driving carefully when it is winter and with some battery degradation.�
May 18, 2016
Lloyd supercharger spacing?
@techmaven beat me to it.�
May 18, 2016
SarahsDad My guess is the actual range will end up being 220 miles, which when charged at the recommended daily (90%) rate, conveniently gives 200mi normal daily range - nice round number for advertising purposes.�
May 18, 2016
Booga 200 is a nice and round number, but especially with Chevy coming up with a 200 mile EV, they probably wanted to edge that out, and knew it was possible based on their own testing and/or calculations. At worst, they can up the battery capacity by 1-2 kwh and make it happen if the efficiency targets are missed at all.
The real excitement, IMO, will be when 300+ miles is achievable with a bigger battery and additional motors to increase regenerative braking.�
May 18, 2016
Jayc I think Tesla is aiming for "highway speed" 215 miles with Model 3 base configuration. That way they can be confident of at least that and (possibly) more for real world mixed driving.�
May 18, 2016
Chopr147 Whatever Tesla decides the M3 range will be, the driver will get far less. If Tesla says 215 I figure in real world situations I will be getting closer to 185mi. Like an ICE that's advertised at 22 hwy and 16 city. In the end I will probably get 14 MPG.Maybe i'm just being a pessimist. My M3 range figures are just knee-jerk top of the head numbers. Not to be taken too seriously
�
May 18, 2016
Pando Why 215 miles? Probably a good balance of pack weight, cost, charging time, and how much range a typical driver really needs most.�
May 18, 2016
Buckeye2320 Here is a good article on a 60 kWh battery in a Tesla Model S. With the Model 3 being smaller and lighter than the Model S, but with the same battery, then it should be able to go farther than the Model S rated 208 Miles. 215 rated miles, is not that far off considering some of the advancements in battery technology between 2012 and 2018 that will happen.
Life With Tesla Model S: Pushing the Range Limits In 60-kWh Car�
May 18, 2016
stopcrazypp The 215 miles is the minimum projected EPA rating. They bumped this from the "200 real world" previously. I suspect it is because they have a decent model of the car already and that range is easily achievable under their model.�
May 18, 2016
geoffreak If I had to guess, the 215 mile range is a conservative estimate. Since Elon said at least 215 miles at the reveal and they've still got time to make improvements, I would expect they will be able to surpass this number. I think it's entirely possible that the base battery will have closer to a 220 or 225 mile range thanks to the additional adjustments they make before the production version.
Another interpretation is that the 215 miles is what they're aiming for at 70mph+ and they're expecting to surpass that with the EPA ratings test.�
May 18, 2016
ItsNotAboutTheMoney My guess would be a distance figured out based on targets for their Supercharger model. But it's also possible that Elon Musk plucked it out of the air.�
May 18, 2016
JoseBQ I think EM means EPA rated range.
It's a good number for consumption (economy/pollution) purposes, but what is really required is range at highway speeds (75 mph).
At those speeds range decreases dramatically, when it is most required for medium/long distance trips (for instance to skip a supercharger in a 200-220 miles trip without having to speed down to 55 mph).�
May 18, 2016
eisbock I think you've got it here. Elon was always quoted as saying "200 real world miles". The EPA range typically isn't what you'll be getting, you'll usually get a bit lower than that, so the a 215 EPA rating would give you around "200 real world miles". I think your 185 estimate is on the low side for realistic miles.�
May 18, 2016
Booga Depends on usage and conditions though. In the Midwest, where it can drop below 0F, we won't always get 200. Or after 10 years in this weather and with 120,000 miles, it'll have reduced capacity. I'm sure Tesla batteries will hold up well but I'm buying with a worse estimate based on my own conditions. (And almost certainly going for a range upgrade so I have even more flexibility)�
May 18, 2016
aronth5 Elon said the Model 3 will be at least EPA rated 215 miles and clearly stated they it might be higher.
From the unveiling Elon said "These are minimum numbers, we hope to exceed them" so my guess when all is said and done is range will be closer to 225.
They are using 215 miles just to be safe.�
May 18, 2016
eloder As soon as temperatures hit above 60, I get higher than EPA in my Leaf. Sometimes those records are as high as near 30% above EPA on city/suburban streets (<50mph).
I also had over 20% above EPA on my last gas car, a smart car in both city and highway driving conditions.�
May 18, 2016
ImEric I think, if anything, They're probably using somewhere around a 55 Kwh (or so) battery and getting those numbers from their real-world testing of their prototype. It's entirely possible that as their battery chemistry and geometry get better between now and next summer, they may be able to get slightly better range strictly because of increased density. with the same size pack. If that's the case, I could see them using an even smaller battery for the base model (50-53 kWh) since increased density means less pack-weight, and less weight overall in the car. I think Instead of increasing the range of the car, they might take the opportunity to save some money. If they're making their packs for about $125.00/kWh, and they're able to shave off 5 kWh, and still get the same range, then they'd save about $625.00/car. If 150k of the 400k pre-orders get the base model, then Tesla would save almost 100 million dollars by producing a car with the agreed upon range, using a slightly more energy dense battery.�
May 18, 2016
ecarfan The Model 3 will not have "the same battery" as the S. The physical size will be different. The two models are built on different platforms.�
May 18, 2016
voip-ninja Not sure why you are pulling this rabbit out of your hat when Tesla have said nothing to indicate this will happen. Range reduction at cruise speeds is a big problem for tesla and will remain so I expect for the foreseeable future.
EM specifically said 215 EPA mileage which means more like 185 at 75mph in normal temperatures.�
May 18, 2016
MitchJi I believe that they know it will be higher but they don't want to announce it until they update they make similar upgrades to the S-X because they don't want to canabalize the S-X sales. If you listen to Elon's M3 presentation he says that 215 is the minimum and that they aspire to do better.�
May 18, 2016
cantdecide I think it is a reasonable assumption that they are getting 215-218 EPA today with the prototype (or a computer model of it).
The range is primarily determined by Elon wanting at least 200 miles of range and wanting to use cheap low density batteries but fill the battery compartment (no point in leaving out a few cheap batteries for a round range number).
Give it a year of minor tweaks to hardware and software, along with lower variation tolerances on manufacturing and it should be 220 or so EPA miles combined, and higher for highway EPA (which is what actually matters once you get over about 150 miles of range).�
May 18, 2016
Scannerman I believe the quote from Elon was along these lines. "...The most affordable model 3, will have a range of 215 miles..." (or was it at least 215 miles)?
Scannerman�
May 19, 2016
nexsuperne101 If you look at the Nissan Leaf. It has a 24KWh battery, and if you drive it gently, and at no more than a constant 50mph, then it is possible to get 100 miles from 24KWh (actually, it is 21.6Kwh, as there is a 10% battery safety margin).
This works out at 4.6 miles per KWh, or 216 watts per mile. This is achievable in the real world, as I did it last summer.
Realistically for driving at 60mph, that 4.6 miles per KWh drops to 3.8, or 263 watts per mile.
Comparably speaking, the Leaf and the Model 3 are similar sizes, so would be similar weights, however, the CD on a Leaf is 0.29. The CD on the 3 is going to be much lower. A lower CD means less power needed to overcome the wind resistance to maintain speed. Even if it was identical at 0.29, the 55KW battery (which I will assume, possibly wrongly, that 10% capacity will be kept as an overhead), gives 49.5KWh usable. If the worst case is taken at 263 watts per mile, then the range (at 60mph) will be 188 miles. If 55KWh is 100% available, then this jumps up to 209. Try it at 50mph, and its up to 255 miles (at 100% of 55KWh).
This is where the much lower CD and possibly lower weight will come into play, but 215 is a realistic figure, and far more reliable than the old NEDC rating (which would probably be >300 miles?!)�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd
It depends on what you consider "cruise speed". In many areas of the country, 75 is technically speeding (I know....there are a few places where faster IS legal...) and there's no way a company would do their range calculations based on a speed that is illegal in most places.
When they say "cruise speed", they most likely mean 65.
And at that speed, with the drag coefficient they're aiming for, with AWD, the front wheels will be doing most of the work at cruising speed, boosting efficiency.�
May 19, 2016
timk225 Just like the Challenger R/T I am driving now, my Model 3 will frequently be traveling above the posted speed limit. So if a base battery gets 220 miles real world, I'll be doing good to get 200.
Aside from the cost of the battery and its actual range, there needs to be enough of a difference in range between the big battery and the standard one, so that people will pay out more for the big battery. The small one can't be TOO good.�
May 19, 2016
Buckeye2320 Are they not built on the same technology???? Yes they are on different "skateboard" platforms, but the battery technology is the same, therefore, if you take the size of the vehicle, Model ? being smaller, and the battery technology into consideration, then my statement is true. The Model 3 with a 60kWh battery should easily be able to do 215 EPA Miles.
Yes there are threads that state the Model 3 will have <60 kWh battery, but as we have seen with the Model S and how Tesla has been changing the 60 kWh->70kWh->75kWh, and the 85kWh->90kWh battery, we can assume that by the time the Model ? will be at least a 60kWh pack on a different "skateboard" platform.�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd
I live in MA, where the speed limit is just a suggestion on most days, so I totally understand not getting the advertised max range on a daily basis. I'm just saying that for legal purposes, Tesla isn't going to come out and tell you that "cruising range" is 75mph+.
When we take our long trips to see the wife's family in VA, I'll let Autopilot do the speed limit in range mode. But if the trip is less than 150 miles, I'm going to have some fun getting there.�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd
But the battery technology is not the exact same. New cells, different chemistry, different energy density. For the same weight that a current (S/X) 60kWh pack is, the Model 3 might be able to do it with a significant weight saving, meaning more range. I suppose we'll have to wait until at least Q4 when the Gigafactory starts producing batteries, or maybe even Reveal Part 2, but I suspect the new battery cell makeup will have a lot to do with the range of the 3.�
May 19, 2016
geoffreak Yeah, I have to consider the range at 80-85 mph because that is the interstate highway speed of traffic in Texas. Having a car with a low Cd should help tremendously in reducing drag losses. Hopefully when the final specs get published, we'll be able to calculate the estimated range at that speed so Texas drivers know their roadtrip range.�
May 19, 2016
JeffK The EPA high speed part of the 5 cycle fuel economy test does go to 80 mph�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd I don't keep up with the EPA test...but how long does it maintain 80mph? In bursts? or for a sustained period of time?�
May 19, 2016
JeffK This'll help
Detailed Test Information
There's a table in the test details tab.
It's not a long period of time but that high speed graph pretty much describes the way I drive.�
May 19, 2016
Booga You might be interested in a graph like this (or someone else reading this thread). The range of the Model S mentioned goes from 250-275 miles at 65mph down to ~200 miles at 80mph.
This is one of the reasons I want to get the range upgrade on the Model 3. The primary highways I travel on for routine long distance driving have speed limits of 70 and so traffic is usually flowing at 75-80mph. I have a one way distance of 200 miles for 1 trip and 140 miles for the 2nd trip. The larger battery will help make both of those a reality. I'm open to stopping at a supercharger when needed, but this will provide me with a lot more flexibility in terms of the speeds I drive (or rather, AP drives on my behalf) and less planning that will be needed from me for charging.
I look forward to the day when we have electric charging stations at nearly every highway exit.
Model S Efficiency and Range�
May 19, 2016
geoffreak So worst case scenario, we're talking about a 30% reduction in range. This means the base battery will likely have at worst a 150 mile range at 80-85 mph. Would this be sufficient to go between all super chargers? I would say this distance sucks because this means you would be stopping at most every hour and a half instead of every two hours while driving.
My goal is to have the option to drive between locations in Dallas and Austin (almost exactly 215 miles door to door, how convenient) at the proper speed when I need to hurry or if I want to stop at a different location besides the Waco supercharger. I understand that in the future as more charging locations open along the route that this would be less of an issue, so I'm mostly only concerned with the short term.�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd
I think in the short term the answer is going to be:
get the big battery and keep it under 80......�
May 19, 2016
JeffK With a smaller Cd we'd be looking at less of a loss at high speed compared with the Model S so the graph would be a little less steep of a drop off.�
May 19, 2016
geoffreak Yeah, absolutely. The smaller battery isn't an option for me to fulfill that wish. I was mostly working out the math to prove it. Once Tesla reveals the upgrade price, I'll be able to decide if the upgrade is worth it for this hypothetical (which is mostly to make it an easier pitch to my wife and relatives) or if I'll just deal with stopping at the supercharger every time.
I decided to work out the numbers for a worst case scenario with the understanding that it might be closer to a 20% reduction in range with the 3. Every bit of additional range would help, but I'm not even close to my ideal range so it doesn't really matter much to me.�
May 19, 2016
Booga You're right to be thinking about it this way. Depending on how long you own the car, you might get some battery degradation over time, which lowers the capacity as well. It's my opinion that the 215 miles of range is going to be a good offering for those who intend on staying in town most of the time, can charge at home or work regularly, and/or live in a generally warm place without winters that drop below 0F. It's not yet a 100% no worries replacement for an ICE based vehicle.
I mentioned this in another thread - I think that roughly 200 miles of range is like a 64GB SSD in computers. The 300 mile range is like a 128GB in my opinion. At that point, for nearly anything I'm doing, I'm in pretty good shape. At 64gb, I'm struggling a little and have to plan things out more than I would like. (This isn't a perfect analogy, because some applications need multiples of it like with video editing, but it works within a range of comparison)
If 300+ miles of rated range is available at a reasonable price after a tax credit, then I'm a buyer of the Model 3. If I can't get it, then I'll consider passing on the car. I love the new technology and can't wait... I'm hopeful it will be affordable with the options I want.�
May 19, 2016
jkk_ Not the perfect analogy yeah, but still, well said. I'll extent your analogy by adding that you really don't get all of the 64GB or 128GB for yourself, you lose some for the formatting, OS etc. Like you lose range for speed, wind, weather, temperature. I suppose that I could make do with the 215 miles range but it would be quite the hassle during winter and I'd rather have enough buffer that I don't need to worry about it.�
May 19, 2016
SageBrush That is my experience also, in both our Honda Fit and Toyota Prius (v)agon:
Low 40's MPG in the Fit in mostly highway driving
About 50 MPG lifetime in the (v)agon
According to EPA,
Honda Fit 31 MPG combined
Prius (v)agon 42 MPG combined�
May 19, 2016
brianman Probably related to expectations for the Bolt.
Your Prediction: Bolt EPA Range - View Poll Results�
May 19, 2016
voip-ninja In the mid-west legal speeds can go up to 80-85 mph and some stretches of those roads you might get run off by big rigs if you are in the fast lane going less than 90 mph.
Additionally Tesla is an international company and there are many markets with very high legal speeds. Germany and Australia are two of the biggest.
I am willing to make some very small compromises to drive an EV. Needing to stop for a 30 minute charge after every 2 hours of driving in the flow of traffic is not one of them. I will have to see what the improvements are with larger batteries and what they will cost. For me, personally, 300 miles of range at 65mph and about 240 in actual usage at 80mph would be acceptable. I don't take many long drives but do so occasionally and want the car to function as similarly to my BMW as possible.�
May 19, 2016
brianman People should be passing not camping in the left lane anyway. If you're really worried about range, you shouldn't spend much time passing (at such speeds) either.�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd
The wife gets 36mpg in her Subie, and I get 33-34 in my Audi. I also have a good enough idea of how the elevation changes and temperature will affect range on our only really long drive (MA to VA and back) to see the in-laws. I know I should take it easy through MA and CT, but as I get into NY/NJ and points south, the terrain smooths out and I can cruise along at the minimum suggested speed of 80mph on the Jersey Turnpike.
Luckily, the SC network as it's already in place, will support that trip just fine.�
May 19, 2016
voip-ninja No lectures please. I actually grew up in a part of the country where they practice lane discipline and have logged quite a few hours on the autobahn.�
May 19, 2016
brianman Heh. I think a lecture requires at lot more than 27 words.
Regardless of speed, if you're not literally blocked in front (or in a construction zone, etc.) while in the left lane and a big rig is at all capable of reaching your bumper you're doing it wrong.�
May 19, 2016
voip-ninja Or maybe I am commenting on things I have witnessed happening to other drivers on eastbound I80 where rigs will radio behind about speed traps and triple digit speeds coming out of Utah are typical (and a shock to drivers used to dawdling along in the passing lane).�
May 19, 2016
TSLAholic 215 x 0.7 = 150. Isn't 150 mile real world range something they deem necessary to make it from SC to SC in the middle of a cold winter trip?�
May 19, 2016
brianman Natural selection.�
May 19, 2016
voip-ninja At faster highway speeds you will probably get less range than that at temps well below freezing.
Some are willing to drive at 60mph in a 75mph roadway to make it happen. Not me though.�
May 19, 2016
182RG ^ This ^
Lack of a battery upgrade that allows me to drive SC to SC at 75 MPH in 30 degree weather or 95 degree weather with a safety margin would probably be my only deal killer. Not a fan of the far right lane.....
15 - 20 MPH below the traffic flow on I-95 isn't just irritating. It's unsafe.
I truly would pay serious upgrade $$ to be able to make it the 230 miles door to door to our beach house, in all weather / wind conditions at 75 MPH, without a stop at the Richmond, VA SC.�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd I live somewhere where a big rig isn't technically allowed in the left lane......so there's that.�
May 19, 2016
JeffK They aren't allowed there in most states but it doesn't stop them from doing it. It's a good way to lose your CDL.�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd My in-laws live out by Farmville, so the Glen Allen SC will be a regular stop when we visit them.
Luckily they have a 14-50 already installed. There isn't much in the way of Tesla charging infrastructure in that corner of the state.�
May 19, 2016
ModelNforNerd
on 495 on the outer edges of Boston, the cops won't blink an eye if you're doing 85, but they will nail a truck driver in the left lane.�
May 19, 2016
pmadflyer I almost saw someone get destroyed in a Leaf on the highway. Going 55 on a 70 (read 75) highway, the vehicle behind him moved over to pass, and no one behind expected to come up on a car so quickly on the highway. I really don't want to have to go below the speed limit to make it to my destination. Also, it would be bad advertising.�
May 20, 2016
JoseBQ That's the point. Even if 75 mph it's the legal maximum speed in most highways (in Europe even more), I don't want either to drive at 55 mph in a highway where all the car's drive at 75 mph.�
May 20, 2016
diamond.g I find that there is a huge difference drafting someone at 75 MPH vs having no one in front of me. In my TDI I can get 48-50 avg mpg if I draft, 38-42 avg mpg otherwise. It is likely that would help the Model 3 eek out some distance.�
May 20, 2016
SageBrush The killer app for auto-pilot may be controlled drafting, but stand-alone like you do is really, really, foolish.�
May 20, 2016
diamond.g Oh gosh, I don't draft like nascar eating bumper drafting. That is craziness...�
May 20, 2016
JeffK I do when a person is going 20 in a 40 with no ability to pass. Maybe you might call that tailgating... haha�
May 20, 2016
SageBrush If you are close enough to improve your fuel economy by 20+ percent you are way too close.
Just consider that it will take you at least a good half second to respond to traffic changes in front of you. At 70 mph that is already 50 feet. A very miserly one second interval is 100 feet ...�
May 20, 2016
diamond.g
What would be the average % gain if I followed at a safer distance?�
May 20, 2016
SageBrush Pardon ?�
May 20, 2016
bxr140 I frequently run the gauntlet of The 5 between the Bay Area and LA. I intially wanted to believe 'drafting' ( = the nominal separation in heavy-ish freeway traffic, for all you safety nazis...) helped my range.
After more experimentation, I've found that following vehicles (again, at a safe distance) makes almost zero impact unless you're behind a bus or big rig. You'd be lucky to see a few miles improvement in a leg. Clicking down 1mph in open road cruising has at least the same effect, if not more. Managing your speed relative to head/tailwinds has significantly more effect.�
May 20, 2016
diamond.g @SageBrush what @bxr140 replied with answered my question.
So the correct thing to do is slow down (which has bee repeated a bunch) if you are in danger of not making the next SC/Charger/Destination.�
May 20, 2016
Topher I see a 5-10% increase in MPG even at 4-5 seconds behind a large truck.
Thank you kindly.�
May 20, 2016
bxr140 Like I said, a big truck or a bus does make a difference. You'll also see a gain from slowing down to match the speed of your rabbit, so don't apply all the savings to the draft itself.�
May 20, 2016
SageBrush By my arithmetic -- the truck is over a football field in front of you calculating from 60 mph.
I'm surprised by your observation�
May 20, 2016
voip-ninja Yes, aerodynamics don't back up that assertion at all. Drafting Behind Trucks: Does it Work?
At 60 mph and 5 seconds behind you are;
5280 / 60 * 5 = 440 feet away. Should be very little if any draft effect.
Good rule of thumb is that minimum safe distance at highway speeds is 2 seconds, for today's texting distracted drivers, or when conditions are less than ideal, 4 seconds.
I am highly skeptical of any fuel economy gains 5 seconds behind someone ... No matter how big the other vehicle is.�
May 20, 2016
Topher That sounds about right.
I am generally speeding up to keep up with them.
Thank you kindly.�
May 20, 2016
TSLAholic BTW, the 0.7 factor in the formula I referenced doesn't just account for low temps, but also normal driving speeds. I don't think anyone who orders M3 plans to drive it like a Leaf. Besides, 215 is the bare minimum EPA range announced. So much can change between now and launch. Keep in mind that the apples to oranges comparison won't just magically go away once the Bolt is launched. I guarantee you that Elon will pay attention (and adjust accordingly) to what real world range Chevy (or any other manufacturer) actually ends up with prior to M3 launch. M3 absolutely has to be the range champ for the money.
Oh, and don't forget the biggest and most important factor of them all... there will be an optional higher capacity battery, perhaps even more than one!�
May 20, 2016
SageBrush Any good modeling available ?�
May 20, 2016
bxr140 Mythbusters did this a while back and found something like 10-12% gains at 100ft distance (6-7 car lengths) behind a tractor trailer. No way you're getting that at 300-400 feet.�
May 20, 2016
Zoomit Another significant detriment to gains from drafting is a crosswind. If there's any appreciable crosswind, your gains are lost as the wake is blown to one side or the other.�
May 20, 2016
Topher I'll happily admit that I did not do a scientific study, it was merely casually observed anecdotal evidence. Perhaps you can explain how you extrapolated for one data point to an impossibility.
Thank you kindly.�
May 20, 2016
Zoomit because...physics�
May 20, 2016
bxr140 I'd be happy to, right after you explain the scientific methods you used to determine that you gained 10% at 300ft.�
May 20, 2016
Red Sage I would probably use the word 'simulations' rather than 'testing'.
I think they made a simulation, hoped for a certain result, didn't reach it, but consistently got over 215 miles of range when going through the EPA's 5-Cycle testing procedure.
The only misdirection, if any, is that Elon Musk has only spoken of minimum EPA, or minimum 'Real World' range. Thus far there has been no notation of an expected maximum. I do know that at one point he wanted to offer a $50,000 (after incentives) version of Model S that had a 320 mile range. But reality set in and made that impossible. I'm sure Elon would love to fix that with Model ?.�
May 20, 2016
SageBrush There is nothing to be gained from bickering and pecking; please stop.
Any idea how to model this question by first principles ? That would be cool.�
May 21, 2016
diamond.g I would rather Tesla work towards a 200mi range in cold weather, than to worry about 200mi EPA. Especially since the EPA 5-cycle test doesn't take into account cold weather.�
May 21, 2016
Booga Detailed Test Information
Click on Test Details and you should see that they do have a cold temperature test. Or am I misunderstanding what you're describing? I haven't followed this conversation 100%.�
May 21, 2016
diamond.g That is a low speed cold temp test. Which is useful, but not what folks are talking about here. Most are concerned about range doing normal interstate speeds in cold weather.�
May 21, 2016
JeffK If by low speed you mean average city driving when it's below freezing.
I think the biggest thing affecting range in the winter is the battery response to cold temps. The most battery drain is going to be the strongest during acceleration so this test is actually a very decent measure of real world conditions and would arguably be more difficult than a continuous interstate run in the same time interval even at high speed.�
May 21, 2016
diamond.g It would also be a nice surprise if Tesla rates the Model 3 at the 80% charge point instead of the 100%. But I understand that isn't likely.�
May 21, 2016
zenmaster It's too confusing to customers, while competition would just state their max to look better. You'd need yet another industry standard to hope to improve advertised range estimate as compared to reality. The cold weather and life shortening max charges should be factors included in the advertised range.�
May 21, 2016
diamond.g The problem with not doing it that way is the end user, who has been told not to 100% charge (often), won't see the full range.
With a commute like mine having it be rated at 80% allows the cold weather range loss to not hurt as much.
One can dream...�
May 21, 2016
Topher Navier-Stokes. Let me know how you do.
Thank you kindly.
p.s. I just watched the instant MPG display in my car as trucks pulled in in front of me.�
May 21, 2016
No2DinosaurFuel With tesla's track record of over promising and under delivering, i say the 215 miles spec is so they can one up the competitor's number to make the model 3 look better. I say the 215 miles is the best case range for the M3. Those who believe it is real can continue to live in their fantasy world. I wont believe it until i see it in real life under real world conditions.�
May 21, 2016
zenmaster I easily believe it due to the tremendous weight reductions and known battery density improvements.�
May 21, 2016
JeffK I disagree, Elon has spoke about his concern a few times that the third generation car needs a real world range of at least 200 mi. so he'd always considered a buffer of 20% if I recall correctly. If this holds then I'd say best case range would be more like 240-250. EPA might give an estimate closer to 215�
May 21, 2016
Booga It might depend on where the "real world" is located�
May 21, 2016
dhanson865 No, the Model 3 will not have the same battery technology as the 2016 Model S.
Cell sizes will be larger in 2018, no more 16850, the new cells will be something like 20700 giving higher density and requiring a redesign of the rest of the pack structure.
It will change the cooling characteristics.
It will change the layout.
It will change the density.
Pretty significant difference between Model 3 and old school Model S.
Now if you want to say that Model S/X will get those larger cells down the road and share battery technology I'll agree. But for now you can't accurately say that Model S of today and Model 3 of the future have the same battery tech.�
May 21, 2016
dhanson865 80 mph is only for a few seconds but 60-65 is sustained
![[?IMG]](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/hwfetdds.gif)
�
![[?IMG]](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/us06dds.gif)
May 21, 2016
SageBrush Over my head and past my prime. I see though that the solution is a differential equation. While driving home today I kinda sorta convinced myself that the pull would decrease proportionately to the square of the distance.�
May 21, 2016
travwill And just remember, they always quote max 100% miles, something all users have to realize is not the norm and not feasible really since it takes so long to charge to 100% at times. So 215 (or more) being 100%, you'll really only charge to 90% typically, netting about 193 miles being typical. That will also be for a D version since more efficient, a RWD will have a little less.
REAL world driving will likely net about 5% - 10% lower than that, so more like 175 REAL world miles (maybe more). If you are in a COLD climate during really cold months you'll likely see another 70% cut on that, netting you a final total ~121 REAL miles or so in those colder months.
Just always keep those reductions in mind...
-T�
May 21, 2016
Red Sage I don't. I look forward to the day when the majority of Customers charge their cars at home or at work. I look forward to the day when Superchargers on long distance routes need not be more dense than 80 or 90 miles apart. I look forward to the day when a low capacity battery pack for a new electric car allows at least 350 miles of highway driving at 85 MPH while only depleting your charge from 90% to 20% -- and being able to get back to over 80% in 15 minutes or less using a Supercharger. Basically, I expect the technology to improve tremendously in the years to come, so that all fears and worries about driving fully electric are eliminated.�
May 23, 2016
ImEric I'm sure that there will be an upgraded battery pack. Right now, i'm guessing that the base model ? has a 55 KWh pack, and that by the end of next year, through small incremental feats of Engineering, they might be able to drop it to as low as 50 KWh. I'm also guessing that there will be 1 to 2 additional packs (perhaps 65 KWh and 80 KWh) and that with the top battery pack, your drive will be effortless in anything above 25 degree weather or a REALLY strong head wind. So if your goal is a 200+ mile trip without a stop, just start saving the extra $12k or so right now to get the car that you actually want).�
May 23, 2016
ImEric 1) Elon Musk said two things about the ?:
- The base model will be single motor RWD
- The Cheapest base model will get at least 215 miles of range (200 real world) miles.
2) Thanks for the tip on cold weather. I knew it was less, but I didn't know it was 75%! It's always nice to hear from people with real world experience. That's a LOT of range loss... Reason #822 to live in Southern California.�
May 23, 2016
techmaven Wait, that's not true. 70%??
You can hit 70% if you are not traveling long distances... short trips that never really get the car heated up. But 70% making Supercharger jumps is not right.
Edit: Oh... ok, 70% of 5-10%... ?�
May 23, 2016
techmaven Note that the 60-65 mph sustained is actually a very short period of time. The high speed test really simulates a highway commute, where there is still traffic. See how bumpy it is between 60 and 80 mph. Every change in speed decreases efficiency. The entire high speed section is only 5.5 minutes, or about a 6 mile highway commute in light to medium traffic. The high speed test spends almost 45% of the time doing non-highway speeds with significant acceleration and deceleration - it models a commute from a nearby suburb into a city.�
May 23, 2016
nexsuperne101 The batteries are rated for 100% at 20 Celsius. Every 2C below this reduces the effective battery capacity by 1%, so by the time you get to 0C (32f), the capacity is reduced by 90%. On a 215 mile car, this will reduce to about 190 miles at freezing point. On top of this, the heater will be in use, probably the wipers and demister as well. Even if you went worst case, it won't be any lower than 160 miles range at -15C (which is extremely cold in the UK). I know from the experience of the last winter that my Leaf went from 85 miles in summer (with Aircon on, otherwise would have been 90 miles), down to a very tight 70 miles (with the heating on). This was an 82% reduction over summer.
The same factors applied to a Tesla, which isn't as inefficient, this would drop 215 miles (summer) down to 176 miles (heavy winter).�
May 23, 2016
Topher Perhaps we could avoid some confusion if we kept estimates to power consumption. I have no idea what the heater will draw in the model ?, but we can estimate from the Model S. We can't however take the percentage loss of range from the Model S and apply it to the Model ?.
Additionally, heat losses from a heated car depend on the outside temperature (U * A * ?T). The losses at -10�F are twice those at 30�F.
Thank you kindly.�
May 23, 2016
AZ Desert Driver there is a story about 12 things to know about a Tesla - and they say...
We believe Supercharger access will be an extra cost option on the Model 3. This allows those who don�t need long-distance-travel capability to save a bit of money while those who will use their Tesla for long-distance travel can invest a bit more, in order to fund expansion and maintenance of the Supercharger network. We also believe it�s likely that Tesla will roll Supercharger access into the higher-capacity battery option on the Model 3, just as they did with the Model S. In other words, if you spend an extra $5,000 to $10,000 to get a larger battery with much greater range, you probably won�t have to pay extra to get Supercharger access.
So I am trying to absorb this....IF there is a Supercharger access charge....could one choose to NOT buy this until until I wanted a road trip? Then buy into SC series at some lifetime price like $2,000? (or just let me have access for my month long venture?) And offset this choice with the price of a bakery from 60 KWH to 90 kWh at a price of $6,000?
Any wild guesses as to how much SC access might be? duration? Battery increment sizes? Prices?�
May 23, 2016
ItsNotAboutTheMoney For the Model S60, the Supercharger price was $2,000 at time of purchase or $2,500 if enabled later. I would expect Model 3 pricing to be the same.�
May 23, 2016
Alketi Not sure how Tesla would alter their Supercharger access. It could be a one time fee, it could be a fee for a duration, it could be per use, it could be "free".
A more interesting question is whether or not Tesla would be allowed (state-by-state) to charge per-use access to a Supercharger. I'm wondering if "reselling" electricity is perhaps forbidden in certain locations. Does anyone know these details?�
May 23, 2016
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Some states ban it.
Some states have made exceptions for chargers.�
May 23, 2016
stopcrazypp In states that do not allow billing by "kWh" (aka reselling electricity while not being a utility company), charge networks simply charge either a flat rate or per minute fees. The billing implementation is a non-issue if Tesla pursues it.�
May 23, 2016
AZ Desert Driver Perhaps one could "join the members-only" club for a fee, and then later resign ones membership.
I used to belong to the Petroleum Club, where one could order a drink in dry counties. There seems to be a workaround for "selling" kWh.
But - the question was - what is the breakeven between buying a bigger battery for more range, and getting access to SC as a way to extend your range. Do you decide on ordering the car, and then change your mind and subscribe to SC network when the need arises? and when the need does not continue - can one resign the membership?�
May 23, 2016
Booga I don't think they would do this to your average user - they'll just provide a shorter duration membership, or a "single visit fee" like an airport lounge or gym.
I'm not sure if many reservations are from people who intend on keeping a second car, but at least for me, I want to replace my only ICE with this car, and that means I will need supercharging capability. In addition, especially with autopilot, even if I have an ICE, there's no way I'd take the ICE on a long drive. That's where autopilot will shine and where I intend on using it.
I wonder if they might bundle AP and supercharging access together. AP is $2,500 today and if your Model S isn't SC enabled, it's another $2,500 for that. Maybe they'll say, "Let's call it $3k and you'll get both" for the Model 3. The primary assumption here is not that energy usage will be significantly lower for the Model 3, but rather that the cost of autopilot development on a per car basis drops significantly when you put another 500,000 vehicles on the road. Of that $3k, $2,500 goes towards SC infrastructure and your expected electricity usage. The other $500 is earmarked for AP development.
Just a thought.�
May 23, 2016
AZ Desert Driver I like your thought - not sure it is the official plan, but one that I could endorse. Single use Supercharger fee (or a vacation membership). Use it when needed, but if you are not a road warrior, then leave it alone. I assume the car needs no additional hardware, just permission to use the SC system (and pay dues into the system).
As to AP - the more I read, the more I want this system. If it helps me avoid even one simple rear-end accident, it pays for the $2500 fee many times over. As I get older, blinder, more easily distracted...AP may save my bacon several times a day. Even an entry level AP seems valuable - and a full fledged, constantly improving system - "don't leave home without it".
But the question remains - breakeven between bigger battery and SC membership? Cost is one factor, but range anxiety enters.�
May 23, 2016
AZ Desert Driver There has been some talk about letting other car companies have access to the SC network. There must be some cost- some sharing of the infrastructure investment and the fill-up fee. If Tesla is willing to structure some billing for BMW users, why not for M3 users? Perhaps thats the $2000 (lifetime) initiation fee.�
May 23, 2016
Jersey Shore Tom I do not expect Tesla to charge for Supercharger access.
There are four major costs for Supercharger access.
1. Cost to build out the network. Tesla has to pay this upfront.
2. Cost for the onboard hardware. It was announced at the reveal that Tesla will pay this upfront and include the hardware in every Model 3.
3. Operations & Maintenance costs except electricity and other variable costs. Tesla has to pay this as long as they operate the network.
4. Electricity and other variable costs. Tesla can avoid this for Model 3's without Supercharger access.
Tesla is already committed to the majority of the cost, why would they risk the goodwill and competitive advantage they have by absorbing the rest? Remember, no one has been able to sustain a pay per charge model.�
May 23, 2016
Mkorpal I agree for the most part with the exception of the bolded. Tesla has a history of paying upfront for bigger batteries and autopilot and expecting you to pay up to activate it. It's not a stretch to imagine they will install the hardware and expect you to pay for it in this case as well.�
May 23, 2016
geoffreak Can we please stop turning every thread into a discussion about how Tesla should charge for Superchargers? This has so little to do with the 215 mile range, much less the size of the car, side view comparisons, or any other threads in this sub-forum. If you see the discussion derailing in other threads it's much better to redirect that person to one of the hundreds of other threads about it than to respond to it. Thanks!
I'd recommend everyone continue this discussion here: Free supercharger or pay per use?
Yeah, it's more of a pipe dream than an actual requirement or a realistic need. However, as I said earlier, the upgraded battery is still unlikely to surpass the 215 miles mark that I want. Even if we assume the best case scenario with the upgraded battery being 50% larger than the base (50kWh -> 75kWh), that's still barely at the ideal range and completely ignores the cost of the added weight. I really can't see them offering more than two battery options as this would be very different from what they've done historically.
Fortunately in Texas I don't really need to worry about the temperature aspect. I think we only had a handful of nights below freezing this past winter (it was abnormally warm) and we usually only drop below freezing for about 7-10 days a year. Most days in summer are quite hot with a nicer summer day in around 85-95?F (~30-35? C) and many days well over that at 95-105+?F (~35-40+?C).�
May 23, 2016
AZ Desert Driver In my world, a car has to live local but travel anywhere. A desert car needs to take me skiing. And, for resale,equipment matters in the asking price.
Now - I brought in a comparison made by others - bigger battery vs supercharger access...which is a better purchase ? So, not really a SC pay-per-use question. It was a question of paying for SC -or- paying for bigger battery. This direct question has slipped sideways a bit.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét