Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Blue Star Wish List

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Common Platform Or Chassis Pan

Thanks for the feedback so far. I think we'll let discussion roll on a bit before I compile an update.
Just one thing right now: To live the platform idea, IMO all cars must share a battery pack of uniform size & shape and a common chassis architecture (steel/aluminum). Hence the same wheel base and track. A 85kWh battery pack is out of reach as long as cell capacity is not increased by factor of 2, in comparison to the NCR-18650A with 3.1Ah.

BMW 3 Series Touring (all dimensions in inches)

Height: 56

Length: 182

Width: 80

Front Track: 60.75

Rear Track: 62.5

Wheel Base: 110.5

Tesla Model S (all dimensions in inches)

Height: 56.5

Length: 196

Width: 86.2

Front Track: 65.4

Rear Track: 66.9

Wheelbase: 116.5

When seen in http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/3series/touring/2012/showroom/index.html#id=start, if this is indeed the vehicle Tesla intends to target with the BlueStar compact family sedan (Model C?), then this vehicle will definitely have something other than three doors. I indicate the Touring as it, along with the Audi A3, posses passenger/luggage/cargo combination possibilities a sedan will find difficult to match. I also emphasize the Touring as with this configuration the back seats can be folded in a multiplicity of ways as with the rear seats in a Honda Fit, which I currently own. Additionally a folding front passenger seat, such as will be found in the forthcoming Encore from Buick, would also be a welcome feature.

Additionally in some areas there are quite notable differences in dimensions between the Model S and the BMW 3 Series Touring, particularly in width, wheelbase, front and rear track and length with a difference of 6.2 inches occurring in width, an even 6 inches in wheelbase, 4.9 inches in front track and 4.4 in inches rear track and 14 inches difference in length. It is in this last dimension that possibly Tesla’s engineers have some head scratching to do as to whether they can settle for a BlueStar Model C that is over a foot longer than the vehicle it targets, the 3 Series, or just take the requisite length out of the chassis pan then make adjustments in the length of the body to make up the difference. The problem, as a matter of course, with taking the length out of the body is that you may end up with something that resembles a Smart car in terms of the front and rear overhangs or lack thereof.
 
The differences in wheelbase and track is what will make it difficult to use the same battery pack form factor as the Model S as the battery fits in between the four wheels. I think Tesla will end up with 3 battery form factors in the long run. The one from the Model S, the one for the Gen3 (I am still going for Model M = midsize) and perhaps one for a future compact (Model C?). As the cell capacity goes up, the packs can get smaller so we should see smaller cars with a similar range option.
I agree with a design that has 3 or 5 doors (hatchback / wagon) style just because it provides more room. Of course this is already the route Tesla went with the Model S. To keep headroom in the back and allow for more luggage space in a smaller car, the new model will probably have a more vertical design to the rear door (hatch).
All just my opinion of course...
 
As a possible hint as to where else the Tesla Model S chassis pan and battery pack form might go unaltered size wise, outside of the Model X, here are the wheelbase and front/rear track specifications for the Model S vs. the Ford Transit Connect

NOTE: All dimensions in inches

Tesla Model S Ford Transit Connect

Front Track: 65.4 59.3

Rear Track: 66.9 61.1

Wheelbase: 116.5 114.6

What? A premium vehicle manufacturer engaged in making service and delivery vans? Mercedes has done this for years. So this may be the next application for the Model S platform after the Model X. The Model V perhaps? Additionally this “Model V” would have to have at least a maximum payload of 1,600 pounds.

In regards to EPA auto size classifications, their criteria is based on combined passenger and cargo volume capacity. With this in mind, a compact car is considered to have combined passenger and cargo volume capacity of 100 to 109.9 cubic feet. Some front/rear track and wheelbase dimensions of cars in this category in inches

Ford Focus Toyota Prius c VW Golf

Front Track 61.2 58.3 61

Rear Track 60.4 58.1 60

Wheel Base 104.3 100.4 102

For comparison the BMW 3 Touring

Front Track 60.75

Rear Track 62.5

Wheelbase 110.5

As can be seen, the Focus is wider in front track than the 3 by half an inch. Similarly the Golf is wider in the same dimension area than the 3 by a quarter of an inch with the Prius c coming in as short by two and a half inches. In rear track, the disparity widens with the 3 being wider by 2.1 inches over the Focus, 2.5 inches over the Golf and a “whopping” 4.4 inches over the Prius c.

These disparities are nothing compared to the difference in the wheel-base which, at the most differs by 10.1 inches between the 3 and Prius c, with the next longest at 8.5 inches difference between the 3 and the Golf and the difference between the Focus and the 3 being the shortest at 6.2 inches.

Because of the wheel base disparities, with the 3 being the longest in this group, it’s my thought that the BMW 3 Series is close to busting the compact car bubble when it comes to that EPA sizing criterion meaning the 3 Series is close to or at the 109.9 cubic feet limit.

So lets see what there is to play with using the front track, rear track and wheelbase as boundaries. The area within the proscribed boundaries for the S is 509,718 sq. in. or 3,539.7 sq. ft. For the 3 the area using the same boundaries is 419,555 sq. in. or 2,913.6 sq. ft. If 6 inches is taken out of the S wheelbase there remains 483,466 sq. in. or 3,357.4 sq. ft. If the S chassis pan and battery form width is retained in this exercise, Tesla can easily say they have more hip and shoulder room than a 3 Series. However there is still the risk of busting the 109.9 cubic feet budget to get inside the EPA compact classification if acceptable headroom is to be maintained. In any case I’m not sure I’d want to go below 105 inches of wheelbase. Somehow I doubt that 96 inches of wheelbase, which is what my 2008 Honda Fit posses, has a place in a $30,000 car. But I may be just old fashioned. I still remember the rear seat leg-room in those old Checker Marathons. By the way a 105-inch wheelbase while retaining the current S front and rear track would yield 459,402 sq. in. or 3,190.3 sq. ft. The disadvantage to that being that BMW could claim the 3 has more rear set leg-room than a Tesla BlueStar C.
 
if you put a body like the toyota future fun ii on the model s frame. that would cut about 24" off the total length of the car for a total of 172". no overhangs on the fun ii. still plenty of interior space, smaller car, less weight, just thinking out loud.
 
I am somewhat at disadvantage here as I have not kept up with Tesla. My first exposure to Tesla was Car Of The Future on NOVA. This is my first time back into the auto world to any extent since the last of the air-cooled 911s, the 993 headed into history. My renewed interest in things automotive has to do number one with finding a replacement for my 2008 Honda Fit, currently at 85,000 miles, and second my preference for that replacement being something electric. Which is why I am taking this interest in the BlueStar, the BlueStar C or just C whatever it ends up being called. My other interest is the design and construction of my first pipe organ with the first set of pipes to be delivered, hopefully, in two months.
 
When you buy your electric BluegenIIIstar C then maybe you can uses some of the pipes from your Fit in the organ. :)

Might have to take you up on your suggestion about organ pipes being sourced from the Fit. Organ pipes don't come cheap. By the way I don't suppose you or anyone else in the forum would know if Tesla is entertaining the notion of taking $5,000 deposits for the BlueStar Gen III just yet. Also can't wait to start bugging the Tesla reps at the The Domain in Austin when that gallery opens.
 
Might have to take you up on your suggestion about organ pipes being sourced from the Fit. Organ pipes don't come cheap. By the way I don't suppose you or anyone else in the forum would know if Tesla is entertaining the notion of taking $5,000 deposits for the BlueStar Gen III just yet. Also can't wait to start bugging the Tesla reps at the The Domain in Austin when that gallery opens.

I dont know when they are going to start taking deposits, but I have $5K set aside waiting for it. Still trying to figure out how to be first in line.
 
Agree, at the right range and price. However a vehicle such as that probably has a standard route and set daily range, it may be more cost effective to use a battery chemistry that is longer lasting and capable of faster charge rates and deeper discharge levels. Then you can use a smaller battery and fast charge it once a day every day and still get high cycle life, like an A123 or Altairnano, or Toshiba Scib. Tesla's pack works because it will be using only a small portion of it's capacity most of the time but still provide the potential for occasional longer trips when needed. A work van should probably be using most of it's pack capacity most of the time.
 
Agree, at the right range and price. However a vehicle such as that probably has a standard route and set daily range, it may be more cost effective to use a battery chemistry that is longer lasting and capable of faster charge rates and deeper discharge levels. Then you can use a smaller battery and fast charge it once a day every day and still get high cycle life, like an A123 or Altairnano, or Toshiba Scib. Tesla's pack works because it will be using only a small portion of it's capacity most of the time but still provide the potential for occasional longer trips when needed. A work van should probably be using most of it's pack capacity most of the time.

some van's do a lot of miles. With the big battery costsaving will be huge!
I know someone doing nearly 300 miles daily! non stop in city! (taxi)
1 little charge during dinner, and he could complete his day without worrys!
But even a (city-)bus based on this van would be possible
l
 
I just thought of something else for my G3 wishlist: more interior options. Specifically, I would like a textile option other than black, and the ability to have interior accents, like lacewood, in textile equipped cars.

Black fabric is fine for a sporty feel, but I find grey to be more relaxing. I like the lacewood pattern too.
 
Give me 300 miles of range - that's the most I need for any drive I do more than once a year (my wife often drives 135 miles to Cape Cod for family)
Adaptive cruise control and regenerative braking means that the 'gas' and brake pedals can be operated autonomously.
If you have servos to work the steering (like how Ford does their parallel parking assist), you're giving me a dream.

...with all that space in the car (trunk & frunk), you'd have an option.. When the technology is perfected, I'm thinking of the coolest retrofit short of slying circuits on a DeLorean. You'd have room for a suite of Google sensors and computers that could make the Gen III the first mass-market self-driving car.