stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
No one is saying it will cost nothing to the base model to allow flexibility to have multiple battery options. You are arguing against something that no one claimed.Because 35k vehicle doesn't have so much play room as vehicle that costs 70k. The only way to reduce price is not to over-engineer it.
JeffK said, that those who buy the P-model will pay for everything, not only their own car engineering, but the whole fleet additionally wasted resources (as I understood that). That might be the case for Model S, but not for Model 3. Because.....
P will require rubber mounts for rear axle that are capable to withstand enormous torque. Need to design beefier hooks or those rubber mounts will not stay where they have to. 1kg weight addition to all Model3's, price: 15€. P model will require more capable coolant loop to the rear axle, hose diameter +20%, heat exchanger that is appropriate for at least some accelerations: 15€+20€. More airflow required through front bumper: Cd -0,02 for all vehicles, cost 5€, range worse on all models. P model for 100k will have 80kWh pack. Curb weight increase (battery price only added to those who opted). Frame/body structure needs to be modified to be appropriate for 80kWh pack weight. Weight increase +10kg on all models (compared to 70kWh battery weight). Manufacturing costs: +150€ for all Model3s. Range reduction. Need suspension parts that are suitable for higher gross vehicle weight. +5kg weight for all models. Range reduction for all models. Higher running costs (all versions). Beefier wheels required (applies to only P version). Frontal crash structure on all models must be suitable (5-star rating) for the new gross vehicle weight (near Model S weight). Weight increase: +20kg. Cost: +70€. range reduction on all models. I believe I was able to count only 10-20% of requirements with their own negative side effects.
So now, every non-P model will be 40kg heavier due to changes that are only required to go from 3.5sec to 2.5sec. And base model will be less efficient do to worse Cd, higher weight. JeffK said, that P buyers will not only pay for hardware but also all other expenses Tesla will have due to extreme P performance. Ok, lets say that the price of the base model will suffer only 300€. Multiply this with 475 000 vehicles that have performance between 6 and 4 seconds. This is 142 million Euros. This sum must be embedded in P-price. We sell 25 000 P models. 570€ additional cost to P model option due to fleet-wide modifications. This is direct cost. Indirect cost must also take into account -15mile range on all models. And either bigger pack for everybody to compensate that or more aluminum used (or other material). How much will that cost. How much will every non-P Model3 will lose value due to extra energy requirement per distance traveled? This are questions that I can not even estimate. Very complex. But at least I brought up basic chain reaction that is required for more capable top Model3 version.
Let's mirror that to Model S. 30 000 vehicles. 1500 ludicrous annually. Additional cost per every Model S (aka over engineered 60 70 models). 1000€ (much more than Model 3). 1000*30000=30 000 000€. Ludicrous option additional cost 20 000€ for everyone who wants that (go check out price difference between 100D and P100D). Possible to sell with that price and with profit? Yes.
Yes I know, my numbers are made up. I gave my best estimations. But it works like that. Whoever wants to dispute should give more precise estimations.
Some may say, that P-variant requirements are only applied for P models. Yea sure. Some. maybe they have different part number for the whole rear axle but one thing is absolutely sure. They will not have different body design according to models. And they will not have different coolant hoses/clamps, pumps, heat exchangers, front bumpers and all those "small things" all different.
Did I at least convince SOMEBODY that having 55kWh and 90kWh battery pack on the same body is not going to cost near-nothing for non-90kWh versions?
Actually AFAIK, it wasn't 40kWh, it was software limited 60kWh.
There are reasons why Model S60 weights 400kg/880lbs more than Bolt 60kWh. Empty huge frunk/trunk doesn't actually add to weight. Bolt will not handle 75kWh pack (even though it is possible to fit it) and same carrying capacity (5 seater). Model S will. And it also works with 90kWh pack. And even 100kWh pack. And second drive unit. But that should be it. Now put that on Model 3 and we get Model S again. Making nose shorter and vehicle more aerodynamic and tires 1" smaller will not make noticeable difference.
Rather what everyone is pushing back against you for is the claim it would not make financial sense for Tesla to offer a loaded top end model approaching $100k on the Model 3, simply because its annual volume is in the 100s of thousands instead of 10s of thousands.
I'll give a simple counter example: the BMW 3 series which is made in ~500k units annual starts at $33k and a loaded M3 sedan is $90k.
The way BMW makes that work is the options on the M3 have extremely high margins. Any tweaks they made to the base model to allow such options is more than made up for by that high price.