I meant no more than a little over 50kWh, so probably around 50kWh.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I meant no more than a little over 50kWh, so probably around 50kWh.
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.
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.
Coming from a Leaf background upgrading to the T3, I would be more than happy with 36 kWh! Not spoiled at all, here.
Nikxice
Active Member
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.
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!
mickificki
Member
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.
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.
alseTrick
Active Member
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.
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.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
You know they aren't going to be making that smaller pack for a while... there's still time to petition Elon.
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?
Krugerrand
Meow
alseTrick
Active Member
rumor is GM loses approx $7,500 on Bolt (not sure which model). Tesla cant likely do that.
alseTrick
Active Member
Not for mpg/range numbers Tesla, Ford, GMC, Toyota and others will report.
Matters to you, sure. But NOT for vendors.
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.
Similar threads
