-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Not just the logo... They went out of their way to do Tesla like layouts that make it seem more "real" than just the rendered car alone would portray.
For instance:
Is a bit like this:
Yup. And they included a supercharger site (or at least a good rendering of one) as well.
If I was in Tesla's shoes, I probably wouldn't immediately jump to litigation but it might be about time to start tweeting something like:
Okay, maybe that's better addressed in a blog post rather than trying to fit it in a tweet.
JimmyAZ
Member
OMG what were they thinking!? And the renders are like a 1st year 3D modeler's work. The creative director at Autoevolution should be fired.
I don't know about you, but those specs for $35k are certainly attractive to me! The styling of Stumpf Studios rendering however...not so much.
Well, not everyone do follow Telsa/Elon so closely that they have heard that Elon thinks that real word 200 miles range has to be 240 miles EPA range. Or the rendering may predate that comment from Elon... So then 205 EPA miles and a 50 kWh battery seemed likely. Remember the MS60 got 208 EPA miles... With the new numbers we "know" that it will probably be close to 240 EPA miles, and then a battery in the 55-60kWh is more likely.
They are guessing at 214 hp and 6.1 to 60. This is reasonable guesses in the lower end of the possible specs, and your numbers are reasonable guesses in the upper end. Yes, everyone seems to think that the Model 3 in it's base version will be something like a sport-musclecar-dragster, but it don't have to be - not in it's bare-bone version. I think this numbers will end up around the middle-point between your numbers and the numbers in the rendering - 250-280 hp and around 5.5 0-60.
But missing the start price do show that they do not believe in Tesla. And THAT is unforgivable, and surly shows that it's just BS!
Tesla should strongly consider sending a Cease & Desist or request some sort of takedown for that rendering.
This image produced by this studio portrays the official Tesla mark far too much (it's not blatantly obvious that it's a concept made by another studio, and other sources are incorrectly labeling it as an official/potential Model 3 render), and is a total detriment to Tesla's branding for the Model 3.
The amount of tech news sites using this disgustingly poor concept is staggering.
This image produced by this studio portrays the official Tesla mark far too much (it's not blatantly obvious that it's a concept made by another studio, and other sources are incorrectly labeling it as an official/potential Model 3 render), and is a total detriment to Tesla's branding for the Model 3.
The amount of tech news sites using this disgustingly poor concept is staggering.
Hey! We're totes on the same page! :biggrin:
The only thing is that it might be too late for Tesla to take the friendly "Please don't do that" approach because of how much those foul concepts have gone around.
If they do take the "please don't do that" approach, the sites that sourced the concept need to also update their articles..
Sidenote: I might just be obsessed, but nothing is more irritating when I'm researching Model 3 news and find that AWFUL, AWFUL concept over and over again on a different site.... lol
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
208 miles, divided by five, multiplied by six comes to about 250 miles. 90% of that is 225 miles. So if a Model ≡ 60 is released, at about 80% of the mass of a Model S 60, it should be able to easily eclipse a 200 mile range.
To look at it another way... If you presume that ~6 kWh of a 60 kWh battery pack is reserved for battery protection on Model ≡, that leaves 54 kWh of usable capacity. To travel 250 miles to run it 'dry' would require a 216 Wh per mile average consumption rate. 200 miles range would be 270 Wh per mile.
Those advocating a 50 kWh battery pack surely don't expect to either achieve a 200 mile range or a performance oriented experience that prospective buyers would find compelling. Because with only 45 kWh of juice, a 240 mile range equates to a leisurely 187.5 Wh per mile... And a 200 mile range would require a limited 225 Wh per mile.
I think it much more likely that Tesla Motors will want the cars to cover 200+ miles even on a 90% charge. That supports the concept that just to make sure, Tesla may specify a 70 kWh battery pack capacity and dual motor AWD as standard equipment on the base Model ≡ for perhaps a 259 mile range. That way, even with a 300 Wh per mile consumption rate a 210 mile range may be achieved on a full charge.
Methinks that Elon Musk would like even the base version of the car to make a firm impression. Thus, anyone expecting a relatively lethargic 6.0 to 8.0 second 0-60 MPH time is bound to be mistaken. Even the BMW 328i does sub-6.0 second 0-60 MPH. I expect the base trim version of Model ≡ will match or surpass the BMW 335i in that measurement.
Keep in mind the identity of Tesla Motors. No one is asking Ferrari to build a Camry. Why expect that of Tesla?
To look at it another way... If you presume that ~6 kWh of a 60 kWh battery pack is reserved for battery protection on Model ≡, that leaves 54 kWh of usable capacity. To travel 250 miles to run it 'dry' would require a 216 Wh per mile average consumption rate. 200 miles range would be 270 Wh per mile.
Those advocating a 50 kWh battery pack surely don't expect to either achieve a 200 mile range or a performance oriented experience that prospective buyers would find compelling. Because with only 45 kWh of juice, a 240 mile range equates to a leisurely 187.5 Wh per mile... And a 200 mile range would require a limited 225 Wh per mile.
I think it much more likely that Tesla Motors will want the cars to cover 200+ miles even on a 90% charge. That supports the concept that just to make sure, Tesla may specify a 70 kWh battery pack capacity and dual motor AWD as standard equipment on the base Model ≡ for perhaps a 259 mile range. That way, even with a 300 Wh per mile consumption rate a 210 mile range may be achieved on a full charge.
Methinks that Elon Musk would like even the base version of the car to make a firm impression. Thus, anyone expecting a relatively lethargic 6.0 to 8.0 second 0-60 MPH time is bound to be mistaken. Even the BMW 328i does sub-6.0 second 0-60 MPH. I expect the base trim version of Model ≡ will match or surpass the BMW 335i in that measurement.
Keep in mind the identity of Tesla Motors. No one is asking Ferrari to build a Camry. Why expect that of Tesla?
I'd hardly consider 0-60 in 6 flat "lethargic." 8 seconds is solidly mediocre, and I'm certain it'll be quicker than that. If it's 6 flat or less, I would be very pleased. I like your Camry/Ferrari analogy, except that the Model 3 will be closer to a Camry than a Ferrari, at least price-wise.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Hence, why I included the qualifier 'relatively'.
• Relative to the 4.8 second 0-60 MPH for the BMW 335i xDrive sedan, a 6.0 0-60 for an entry level Model ≡ would indeed be lethargic.
• Though yes, relative to the 5.7 second timing for a BMW 328i xDrive sedan, it would be merely sluggish.
• And certainly, compared to the 7.4 seconds of a BMW 328d sedan, it might be rather energetic.
The point is to be compelling. Think of the famous line from the movie 'INDEPENDENCE DAY'... "I have got to git me one'a these!"
The identity, purpose, and reputation of the Tesla Motors brand is closer to Ferrari than Toyota. But where the most capable Camry smokes the bottom-of-the-line 3-Series... Such is not the case with others in the range. Acura TLX, Cadillac ATS, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Lexus IS, AUDI A4, and Infiniti Q50 bring formidable weapons to the fray. It is necessary, because the 3-Series rules sales among luxury marques.
The Model ≡ cannot survive being lumped in with all the rest. It must stand both within and apart from the crowd. And the way to do that is with mind boggling performance, even in the lowliest of its trim levels.
• Relative to the 4.8 second 0-60 MPH for the BMW 335i xDrive sedan, a 6.0 0-60 for an entry level Model ≡ would indeed be lethargic.
• Though yes, relative to the 5.7 second timing for a BMW 328i xDrive sedan, it would be merely sluggish.
• And certainly, compared to the 7.4 seconds of a BMW 328d sedan, it might be rather energetic.
The point is to be compelling. Think of the famous line from the movie 'INDEPENDENCE DAY'... "I have got to git me one'a these!"
The identity, purpose, and reputation of the Tesla Motors brand is closer to Ferrari than Toyota. But where the most capable Camry smokes the bottom-of-the-line 3-Series... Such is not the case with others in the range. Acura TLX, Cadillac ATS, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Lexus IS, AUDI A4, and Infiniti Q50 bring formidable weapons to the fray. It is necessary, because the 3-Series rules sales among luxury marques.
The Model ≡ cannot survive being lumped in with all the rest. It must stand both within and apart from the crowd. And the way to do that is with mind boggling performance, even in the lowliest of its trim levels.
Try not to think of performance from ICE point of view where performance == big engine. In EV world performance == big battery.
Model E with 50kWh battery will have much lower performance than one with 70kWh batteries.
There is almost no money to gaino or spare with a bit less powerfull controller or motor. One makes a robust inverter by over-designing it i.e. making it tolerate higher voltage spikes, less resistance, stronger colling etc. Same with electric motor.
So, it is simple really. Tesla will make 3rd gen controllers and motors for E and facelifted S/X. They will use them in Model E. Power will be limited by battery output.
As is in MS60, MS70D and P85D.
Model E with 50kWh battery will have much lower performance than one with 70kWh batteries.
There is almost no money to gaino or spare with a bit less powerfull controller or motor. One makes a robust inverter by over-designing it i.e. making it tolerate higher voltage spikes, less resistance, stronger colling etc. Same with electric motor.
So, it is simple really. Tesla will make 3rd gen controllers and motors for E and facelifted S/X. They will use them in Model E. Power will be limited by battery output.
As is in MS60, MS70D and P85D.
I agree the dynamics and packaging of a more powerful electric motor are different from an ICE engine. I'm not an engineer, but I'm assuming the power output of a given electric motor is limited only by the size and current capacity of the rotor and stator. The difference between 220 hp and 300 hp could be potentially modulated just by programming.
favo
P3D+ owner
Candleflame
Active Member
Similar threads
