TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

Battery is big disappointment

Discussion in 'Model 3: Battery & Charging' started by azred, Jul 28, 2017.

Tags:
  1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    Maine
    I meant no more than a little over 50kWh, so probably around 50kWh.
     
    • Like x 1
  2. Trancela

    Trancela Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Canada
    True. And if the module is being built for the 2170 and fitted with 18650s for the standard range model, then it would still be possible to provide an intermediate range by mixing 2170 and 18650s in the same module.
     
  3. techmaven

    techmaven Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,617
    The Model S is already the most efficient battery electric production vehicle at 75 mph. It's already more efficient than the Bolt at that speed. The Model 3 should be much better, so I expect far less of a penalty for 75 mph over EPA range. With a Cd of 0.23, speed is going to affect it less than other EVs. What kills range on a Tesla is hard acceleration and not allowing it to regenerate energy from slowing down (driving style). Going over 75 mph is going to affect range, and heat is also a big range killer.
     
    • Like x 1
  4. Trancela

    Trancela Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Canada
    Coming from a Leaf background upgrading to the T3, I would be more than happy with 36 kWh! Not spoiled at all, here.
     
  5. Nikxice

    Nikxice Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,054
    Location:
    Hudson, NH
    Here's the explanation from Wired, "In a break from tradition, Tesla won’t talk kilowatt-hour battery sizes, saying that customers understand range in miles better."

    At least for now when discussing range Tesla seems more inclined to follow the KISS principle. They're probably looking to avoid TMI to a general public that's more familiar with terms like horsepower or mpg.
     
  6. zer0cool

    zer0cool Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    495
    Location:
    charlotte, nc
    Ahh, dunno if many here have Model S or EVs already, but driving 70mph or even below behind a truck is a very common occurrence for Model S drivers. The power usage increases exponentially above 70mph that it's usually not worth it (total travel time / charging time ratio) to drive any faster. AC uses little energy, but heat uses LOTS of energy!
     
  7. mickificki

    mickificki Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    681
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    they couldn't match the bolt? really? i just dont get it. im an ultra pro tesla guy, but the 220 miles was such a huge disappointment.

    and to charge 8k for fsd + AP for pretty much something that's UNPROVEN? charge less, then when you do the LA to NY FSD bump up the price.

    my goodness they just totally shot themselves in the foot.
     
    • Like x 2
    • Disagree x 2
  8. macpacheco

    macpacheco Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Brazil
    Doesn't matter what is normal to YOU or ME.
    What matters is what the car market uses to range/mpg standards. 75mph isn't used at all for that.
    What speeds we drive in Brazil has NO bearing on my attempt to educate people about HOW car companies determine their mpg ratings and normal range for marketing purposes.
    There is a very old (american) adage that actually started with cars and was adopted elsewhere (your mileage will vary).
    At car at 100mph vs 50mph will use 4x as much energy per mile/km (8x as much energy/time).
    From 50 to 75mph its about 2.25x (125% more) energy per mile/km.
    Its up to you to know how you drive and make an educated conversion.
     
  9. alseTrick

    alseTrick Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,645
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    I don't think ~15 miles is negligible.
     
  10. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    Maine
    The AP+FSD is the same price as on the Model S/X.

    I think that they really couldn't match the Bolt for range in the base because of cost (note that $35k is lower than the Bolt MSRP and the Model 3 has more features than the Bolt LT) and because they're making a larger battery, with the smaller battery just having fewer modules.
     
    • Like x 1
  11. macpacheco

    macpacheco Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Brazil
    I wish the usage of Cd were totally forbidden.
    First what matters is Cd * A (frontal area). A car that has half the Cd but twice the frontal area will have the same aerodynamics.
    Second having a car with 15% lower Cd * A only lets you drive about 7% faster using the same energy.
    Fuel/electricity consumption is a function of speed squared for mpg and speed cubed for kW drawn.
    If you want to save energy/fuel, drive slower. Lower Cd is cool though, but hardly something that can offset other factors.
    Speed squared dominates fuel/power consumption on vehicles.
     
    • Like x 1
  12. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6,997
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    You know they aren't going to be making that smaller pack for a while... there's still time to petition Elon.
     
  13. schonelucht

    schonelucht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2014
    Messages:
    5,080
    Location:
    Nederland
    That's pretty much BS marketing coverup reason. I understand not making it your primary marketing spiel. But not even mentioning it your spec sheet where you go into such details as the curb weight down to the last lbs and the exact number and type of cameras?
     
    • Like x 2
  14. Trancela

    Trancela Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Canada
    Hmmm ... no leather option?
     
  15. Krugerrand

    Krugerrand Is Cat

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,662
    Location:
    Tesla unfriendly place
    Yes really. That's what he said. Straight up.
     
  16. alseTrick

    alseTrick Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,645
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    More than the Ioniq?
     
  17. alloverx

    alloverx Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    858
    Location:
    Seattle
    rumor is GM loses approx $7,500 on Bolt (not sure which model). Tesla cant likely do that.
     
    • Like x 4
  18. alseTrick

    alseTrick Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    1,645
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    Yes. Yes it does.
     
    • Like x 1
    • Disagree x 1
  19. macpacheco

    macpacheco Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Brazil
    Not for mpg/range numbers Tesla, Ford, GMC, Toyota and others will report.
    Matters to you, sure. But NOT for vendors.
     
  20. techmaven

    techmaven Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,617
    Yes, yes... https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/the-slipperiest-car-on-the-road.pdf

    The Model S has a drag area of 6.2 square feet, combining a 0.24 Cd and 25.2 square feet of frontal area. Note the aero power at 70 mph.... it's not much at 14 hp. And it's in the sweet spot for AC induction motors... low torque, high rpm versus PMAC motors. But the EPA range estimates are based on a lot of city driving metrics. That's acceleration and deceleration as well as relatively low speed. So vehicles like the Ioniq and the Bolt get a lot of advantages with both the NEDC and the EPA testing regimes. But at 70 to 80 mph, Tesla's are very efficient. But if you don't let the vehicle regenerate power as you get off the highway, the overall average will be significantly higher.

    In comparison, the Leaf requires 18 hp for aero power @ 70 mph, or about 28% more. The Model 3 has a far smaller frontal area and a lower Cd, so the aero power is even less than the Model S. But the total drag includes rolling resistance and range is also going to be affected by climate controls. With Tesla using AC induction motors, to get the best range, be gentle with the accelerator and make sure to use regen braking. The speed at 65 mph to 75 mph is probably not that big of a deal as compared to heat or accelerating hard. Obviously, aero starts to really affect above 70 mph, and especially above 75 mph. In other EVs, backing off to 60 or 65 mph is a much bigger win. I think hitting near EPA range at 75 to 80 mph is much easier in a Model 3 than in pretty much any other long range BEV.
     
    • Like x 2

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC