Official Tesla Model 3 thread

[N952JL]

I'd like to see a base Model 3 offered with a "mere" 35kWh battery, but expandable by one or two more 25-35kWh packs, when necessary, for regional or national travel. Think about RAM modules back in the day (LOL). The additional packs could be rented for short periods of time, and would come with supercharger access. You would not "swap" your existing battery, but just temporarily add capacity. 35kWh of Tesla batteries in the smaller/lighter Model 3 would fill most people's needs, most of the time, providing "real world" 100-mile range for many, many years.

I do not feel they will ever offer a 100 mile range version as it just will not sell.

I feel quite confident that a 35kWh Tesla Model 3 would sell, especially for $5-10,000 less and if you could easily add 50kWh when needed for longer trips. (I'm not sure you read or understood what I'm proposing above.) Also, it's silly to say that a 100-mile-range car "just will not sell". Even with 84 or whatever it is now, the Leaf is 'living proof' that that assertion is false. Plus, a 35kWh Tesla 3 would be a 140-mile-range car @4.0mi/kWh when new, maybe 120 "real world", and maybe 100 after 5-10 years. I'd love that car, especially (again) if I could temporarily rent extra kWh with supercharger access for occasional longer trips.

Do you remember what happened to the 40kwh model S?

Part of the reason it didn't sell is because most of the early Tesla/Model S adopters were not at all "cash constrained", as Model 3 buyers in the 'mass market' will be. But the other reason is because buying 40 limited you to 40 "permanently". If potential buyers knew they could easily add capacity (temporarily) for longer trips, I suspect there would have been more interest in the 40.

For the car to become mass market it needs between 200/300 real world mile range. It is that simple.

Again, not that simple, especially if you accept my "premise" that you can up the range to 200-300 miles when needed.

Now superchanger can solve part of that problem, but who wants a road trip where they have to stop every hour and a half for half and hour to recharge.

Again, I don't think you "grok" what I am proposing. So be (or re-read) it.

It really depends on how easy it is to add the extra kwH when needed. Reference the Leaf, it is selling but not to the mass market. That's the problem. 200,000 world wide in five years is not mass market. 200,000 a year in the USA alone would be the beginning of mass market.

 

[smkettner]

It seems clear that the 2WD will be RWD. While I also prefer FWD on snow, the RWD Model S is reported to be a very good snow performer, thanks to modern traction control systems and software.

FWD works freat in the snow primarily because the weight of the ICE is over the wheels. Old VWs had the same thing in RWD and they also did well in the snow.

Electric vehicles with better weight on the wheels and better traction control may limit the need for AWD in most conditions.

I will take the single more and largest battery option.

 

[smkettner]

I'd like to see a base Model 3 offered with a "mere" 35kWh battery, but expandable by one or two more 25-35kWh packs, when necessary, for regional or national travel. Think about RAM modules back in the day (LOL). The additional packs could be rented for short periods of time, and would come with supercharger access. You would not "swap" your existing battery, but just temporarily add capacity. 35kWh of Tesla batteries in the smaller/lighter Model 3 would fill most people's needs, most of the time, providing "real world" 100-mile range for many, many years.

While this does sound great it comes at a time when Tesla appears to be discontinuing the battery swap option for recharging.

 

[dgpcolorado]

FWD works freat in the snow primarily because the weight of the ICE is over the wheels. Old VWs had the same thing in RWD and they also did well in the snow.

Electric vehicles with better weight on the wheels and better traction control may limit the need for AWD in most conditions...

This is something of a myth. FWD works best in snow because the wheels pull the car through the snow and the unpowered rear wheels follow on the track made by the fronts. RWD cars tend to fishtail, not solely due to the lack of weight on the rear wheels, but because the unpowered front wheels have to plow through the snow and tend to bog down. RWD cars are especially bad at climbing steep grades through snow (which describes my driveway).

The best solution, of course, is AWD where each wheel pulls a little and the more distributed power and traction makes for much better overall traction in snow and up hills in slick conditions. But for 2WD cars, FWD wins easily, as those of us who have been driving in snow for many years well know.

 

[smkettner]

Put the engine/transmission in the rear of that FWD car and let me know how that works out.
Or try reverse in any front engine RWD vehicle. The vehicle will not magically gain a bunch of traction or control.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Put the engine/transmission in the rear of that FWD car and let me know how that works out.
Or try reverse in any front engine RWD vehicle. The vehicle will not magically gain a bunch of traction or control.

Nor will the car fishtail, like a RWD when it slips. The forces on the drive wheels are greater than the non-drive wheels, and hence they are more likely to slip. If the front wheels slip, the car will travel forward in a straight line, as the rears will hold it back. If the rear wheels slip, the fronts will try to hold the car back, but it will inevitably fishtail.

So yeah, you would have less traction because of the weight distribution, but when (not if - we are talking about very slick conditions) you slip, you are better off in a FWD car than RWD.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

But is it crash-worthy? Some lowering of CdA should be possible and practical but eventually it comes at the expense of utility. If the LEAF was a subcompact, as opposed to mid-sized, it would (likely) have a lower CdA but also greatly reduced utility for many of us. The Chevy Volt was a good example of push-back from car buyers since it only seated four. So now the new Volt will, sort-of, seat five. And the current Volt is downright cramped compared to the LEAF (I've driven both for extended distances).

While I agree that reduced Cd is the low-hanging fruit for current EVs, especially the LEAF, if Cd or CdA gets too low the car loses its function for many of us. You may be perfectly comfortable driving a "science project" car that compromises absolutely everything in the name of efficiency. I am not. With luck, there will be a happy medium in future EVs.

You are over thinking this - any given size car can have a lower or higher Cd. And lowering the Cd has a much bigger affect than lowering the frontal area. If you lower the Cd, then you can have a LARGER car that still has lower CdA.

Take the Prius and the Model S for example: they are essentially TIED for CdA, and yet the Model S is a much larger car. If it was the same size as the Prius, then the CdA would be much lower. So having a lower drag car helps in both the size and the range. It is a win-win, and not a compromise.

The crash worthiness of any car comes from engineering and construction, and it has NOTHING to do with the car being low drag, or not. The point of my comparison is to illustrate how important low drag is. I am not saying that a car has to be less crash worthy in order to be lower drag - that is comparing apples and cumquats.

 

[dgpcolorado]

You are over thinking this - any given size car can have a lower or higher Cd. And lowering the Cd has a much bigger affect than lowering the frontal area. If you lower the Cd, then you can have a LARGER car that still has lower CdA.

Take the Prius and the Model S for example: they are essentially TIED for CdA, and yet the Model S is a much larger car. If it was the same size as the Prius, then the CdA would be much lower. So having a lower drag car helps in both the size and the range. It is a win-win, and not a compromise...

Huh? Cd and A are both directly proportional to drag:

If you reduce Cd by 25% or you reduce A by 25% you should have about the same drag, right? Are you suggesting that reducing Cd by a significant amount is easier/more achievable than reducing effective frontal area by the same proportion? I think I can buy that (easier to lower Cd on a longer, larger car, for example).

...The crash worthiness of any car comes from engineering and construction, and it has NOTHING to do with the car being low drag, or not. The point of my comparison is to illustrate how important low drag is. I am not saying that a car has to be less crash worthy in order to be lower drag - that is comparing apples and cumquats.

Oh come now. My point, which you dismiss out-of-hand, is that lowering CdA is eventually a compromise with utility and structural integrity. At some point reducing CdA compromises utility and keeping the car crash-worthy becomes difficult or expensive to build. Extremely low CdA cars might prove difficult to engineer from a safety standpoint. There are trade-offs, is all I'm saying. You seem to imply, in your numerous posts on the subject, that it is very easy to do.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Lowering the Cd 25% (0.28 - 25% = 0.21) means that you can have the SAME frontal area, but have lower drag.

Here's the CdA list on EcoModder.com: http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

The Leaf is listed at 24.8 sq ft frontal area X Cd 0.28 = 6.94 sq ft.

If the Cd drops to 0.21 the CdA is 5.208 sq ft.

To do that reduction with only a reduction in frontal area, the Leaf would have to be 17.96 sq ft - which is a 27.5% reduction, and it is a huge sacrifice in the interior volume of the car.

Why do you think that a lower Cd equals less crash safety? That is simply not related - the structure and crumple zones are designed and built within the chassis, and the Cd is merely the shape of the outside of the car. Is a pickup truck safer than a car of equal size? Is the difference in safety due to the difference in Cd? Please explain ...

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Lowering the Cd 25% (0.28 - 25% = 0.21) means that you can have the SAME frontal area, but have lower drag.

Here's the CdA list on EcoModder.com: http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

The Leaf is listed at 24.8 sq ft frontal area X Cd 0.28 = 6.94 sq ft.

If the Cd drops to 0.21 the CdA is 5.208 sq ft.

To do that reduction with only a reduction in frontal area, the Leaf would have to be 17.96 sq ft - which is a 27.5% reduction, and it is a huge sacrifice in the interior volume of the car.

Why do you think that a lower Cd equals less crash safety? That is simply not related - the structure and crumple zones are designed and built within the chassis, and the Cd is merely the shape of the outside of the car. Is a pickup truck safer than a car of equal size? Is the difference in safety due to the difference in Cd? Please explain ...

Your numbers are off a little. A 25% reduction in Cd with the same A is equivalent to a 25% reduction in A with the same Cd, not 27.5%.

To get to 5.208 sq ft with the same Cd, the frontal area would be 18.6, not 17.96.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...Why do you think that a lower Cd equals less crash safety? That is simply not related - the structure and crumple zones are designed and built within the chassis, and the Cd is merely the shape of the outside of the car. Is a pickup truck safer than a car of equal size? Is the difference in safety due to the difference in Cd? Please explain ...

A lot of really low drag cars are shaped in such a way that I think it would be more difficult — read: expensive — to make them crash-worthy. I'm thinking about Elio or Aptera-style vehicles that have very low CdA figures but don't figure to be very crash-worthy (in my view). Which likely isn't fair to your point. If you are talking about a moderate CdA at the Prius level, say 5.8 (quite a big drop from the LEAF 6.9, as you well know) or even 5.0, then I agree with you that safety isn't an issue and concede your point.

My main concern for very low CdA cars is that they would tend to lose their utility, due to shape (Cd) or size (related to A). As an example, very low drag cars generally seem to use rear wheel fairings. Those would be extremely impractical in snow country. A teardrop shape makes for awkward rear seat and trunk/hatch dimensions. A low car is more difficult to enter and exit (less of an issue when one is young and flexible but a significant factor for those who are older). The height of the LEAF is one of the things I like about it: easy to enter and plenty of headroom.


If the Model 3 ended up being a scaled down version of the Model S (or X for the CUV version of the 3) that would be ok with me. But Tesla apparently intends for the Model 3 to be something quite different from a scaled down S, so I have no idea what we will get.

 

[eloder]

I'd hate for the Model 3 to be a lower-range car or lower-range option than 200 miles. Simply put, there are already really great, really fantastic options out there in that range (Fiat 500e for compliance folk, Chevy Spark for compliance folk, smart ED for the rest of the country, Leaf is OK on a lease). The Model 3 is likely to be much larger than any city-focused EV option, based on statements from Tesla so far.

Tesla only makes cars that can function as standalone cars in single-car households for large numbers of people. Not for people like me who can solo-car with a current-gen city-range EV.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I'd hate for the Model 3 to be a lower-range car or lower-range option than 200 miles...

Seems unlikely given what Elon Musk has said about range: "200 miles is minimum threshold for an electric car. We need 200+ miles in real world. Not 200 miles in 'AC off, driving on flat road' mode. Anything below 200 miles isn't passing grade. Most people looking for 20% more than that." [March 2015]

That suggests to me that the base Model 3 will have an EPA range well above 200 miles. My guess is that as the Model 3 debuts the S and X will get a substantial range boost to preserve their distinction as premium models.

 

[evnow]

That suggests to me that the base Model 3 will have an EPA range well above 200 miles. My guess is that as the Model 3 debuts the S and X will get a substantial range boost to preserve their distinction as premium models.

I think Model 3 will get 60 kWh. This would ensure > 200 EPA miles - which is critical for Tesla's super charger strategy.

This is the main reason S 40 was cancelled - it couldn't use Tesla's USP - the super charger network.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I think Model 3 will get 60 kWh. This would ensure > 200 EPA miles - which is critical for Tesla's super charger strategy.

This is the main reason S 40 was cancelled - it couldn't use Tesla's USP - the super charger network.

I agree with both your points.

 

[nosuchthing]

Not 200 miles in 'AC off, driving on flat road' mode...

...and heat off

 

[TonyWilliams]

That suggests to me that the base Model 3 will have an EPA range well above 200 miles. My guess is that as the Model 3 debuts the S and X will get a substantial range boost to preserve their distinction as premium models.

I think Model 3 will get 60 kWh. This would ensure > 200 EPA miles - which is critical for Tesla's super charger strategy.

This is the main reason S 40 was cancelled - it couldn't use Tesla's USP - the super charger network.

Here's some simple Model 3 math:

200 miles / 4.0 miles per kWh (same as a LEAF) = 50.0 kWh usable (55kWh * $200 = $12k)

200 miles / 4.5 miles per kWh (same as a BMW i3) = 44.5kWh usable (50kWh * $200 = $10k)

The Model 3 is not likely to be anywhere as light as a BMW i3, however it will be a lot more aerodynamic!!!

Model 3 may not even be as light as even a steel bodied Nkssan LEAF at about 3400 pounds. The Mercedes B-Class ED (36kWh) and Toyota RAV4 EV (48kWh) are both over 4000 pounds.

So, I'm guessing the vehicle weight with a 50-55kWh battery and a steel body is 3800 pounds at the lowest, or about 80% of the mass of a Model S-85.

Battery pack will weigh about 900 pounds, leaving 2900 for the car (still quite light for a mid-size steel car).

$35,000 at 20% margin leaves 28,000 for all costs. With an $11,000 battery, that leaves $17,000 for the entire car less battery. That is going to be very difficult, and that's WITHOUT Supercharger costs.

 

[palmermd]

Here's some simple Model 3 math:

200 miles / 4.0 miles per kWh (same as a LEAF) = 50.0 kWh usable (55kWh * $200 = $12k)

200 miles / 4.5 miles per kWh (same as a BMW i3) = 44.5kWh usable (50kWh * $200 = $10k)

...

$35,000 at 20% margin leaves 28,000 for all costs. With an $11,000 battery, that leaves $17,000 for the entire car less battery. That is going to be very difficult, and that's WITHOUT Supercharger costs.

And that is why they are targeting $100/kWh and hence the hiring of Jeff. I don't believe they will introduce the Model 3 until they get the cost down to that level. Both Elon and JB have alluded to this. If they don't, they will have delays and that will be a big problem for Tesla. They already have a reputation for launch delays and if they cant quickly get the cost down to near that figure they cant sell a car at their target price. I'm long Tesla, but this is the area I'm watching most closely, and this is a good move for them.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Here's some simple Model 3 math:

200 miles / 4.0 miles per kWh (same as a LEAF) = 50.0 kWh usable (55kWh * $200 = $12k)

200 miles / 4.5 miles per kWh (same as a BMW i3) = 44.5kWh usable (50kWh * $200 = $10k)...

One factor to consider is that the TMS will take some power; that may be part of the reason — in addition to larger size and weight and somewhat less efficient induction motor — that the Model S gets relatively poor mileage compared to a LEAF. I'd be surprised and pleased if the Model 3 managed 0.25 kWh/mile at, say, 100 km/hr. I'm hoping for a more modest 0.3 kWh/mile.

Where I take issue with your numbers is the $200/kWh battery price. My assumption is that the "Gigafactory" will get that below $150/kWh when it opens and that it will drop from there. Just guessing, though.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Do the math.

The point is, a lower Cd is a very good thing, because you have the same size car that drives much farther.