If they offered 600 mile range for like 20k more, I think I'd bite. Zero range anxiety at that point. 600 miles @ 60MPH is 10 hours of driving. Plenty for roadtripping.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If they offered 600 mile range for like 20k more, I think I'd bite. Zero range anxiety at that point. 600 miles @ 60MPH is 10 hours of driving. Plenty for roadtripping.
tdelta1000
Active Member
Panasonic Develops High-Capacity Lithium-Ion Battery Cells That Can Power Laptops and Electric Vehicles | Headquarters News | Panasonic Global
Looks like the 4.0 cells are scheduled to come out next year. That press announcement was 2 years ago. Have they had any more recent news on next generation cells in 2014 and beyond?
Since the bluestar won't come out until 2014 or 2015, I could see the 3.4 or 4.0 cells being used.
Looks like the 4.0 cells are scheduled to come out next year. That press announcement was 2 years ago. Have they had any more recent news on next generation cells in 2014 and beyond?
Since the bluestar won't come out until 2014 or 2015, I could see the 3.4 or 4.0 cells being used.
I'm guessing the Model X might use the 4.0 cells. They say that They'll be produced during fiscal 2013 (which runs March 2012-March 2013). Given that the Model X is slated to arrive about 9 months after fiscal 2013 ends, it seems plausible they'll be ready for use. It might be how they'll get similar range as the current Model S packs -- and it may even lead to range improvements in newer Model S's
WhiteKnight
_____ P85 #549 _____ Sig Red / Sig White
At the current rate of charging $10K for each 70 mile bump in range, an extra 300 miles would cost an additional $43,000. So the 170 kWh Model S would start at $113,000 before any options.
But look at the bright side, the 0-60 time might be as fast or faster than the Performance version.
Even at 113k it's similarly priced as a Fisker Karma and can go further than it (on gas and battery combined). A panamera turbo is priced much higher (IIRC). I'm just saying, I don't want to give Tesla any ideas (to inflate prices), but people currently pay more for less -- they might be surprised by how many bite...
WhiteKnight
_____ P85 #549 _____ Sig Red / Sig White
Building on your point, I think you've got a strong case for a Model R with a 500 or 600 mile range.
The only "downside" is it will be carrying around 1,800 pounds and 70% of the time the average person won't use 10% of the battery.
I'm with you on that one.
In fact, in 8 years if I can upgrade 85 kWh to 170 kW that would be pretty compelling. Especially if the warranty options are strong.
Did you build into your calculations that the 3rd Generation vehicle won't be targeting 25% Gross Profit Margin?
A higher production volume vehicle won't need the same GPM as the Model S to be profitable. Maybe they won't have to cut the battery pack down so much. I don't think they will offer a car with less than 150 miles range at 55 MPH ever. That would be a step back and they're trying to push technology forward. Just my opinion.
A higher production volume vehicle won't need the same GPM as the Model S to be profitable. Maybe they won't have to cut the battery pack down so much. I don't think they will offer a car with less than 150 miles range at 55 MPH ever. That would be a step back and they're trying to push technology forward. Just my opinion.
Nice work, Eric! May I suggest to extend wheelbase by move the rear axle?
It would reduce overhang (possibly more pleasing to the eye), give more space in the rear seats, and make for a smoother ride.
Edit: oh, and lengthen the doors to ease 2nd row ingress/egress.
It would reduce overhang (possibly more pleasing to the eye), give more space in the rear seats, and make for a smoother ride.
Edit: oh, and lengthen the doors to ease 2nd row ingress/egress.
Agree with all these comments Volker, Kevin and Dave!
Volker I did match rear overhang to other similar sized cars. I think it may be a bit visually fat (top to bottom) which make the rear a bit heavy.
This kind of car with a convertible (any kind) would rock with a frunk!
Volker I did match rear overhang to other similar sized cars. I think it may be a bit visually fat (top to bottom) which make the rear a bit heavy.
This kind of car with a convertible (any kind) would rock with a frunk!
Nice job, Eric. I agree with everyone here. The skateboard design really does allow for advantages that an ICE just can't compete with. I wonder if Tesla will have to pay to use someone elses folding hardtop technology. Maybe it's something they could work out with Daimler, who they have a relationship with.
SByer
'08 #383
Convertible adds cost. I suspect that the initial version would be just a straight coupe. Cost focus: 'Cut until it bleeds, then cut once more'.
Eric, I think the doors in the mock-up are short - are there any 2+2s with doors as short as 4 door sedans? I would have the rear wheels back by 2-3", the doors longer by about 4-5". That would start to get into 911 wheelbase length and door size. (Are the Roadsters' doors longer than the 911's? Don't seem to be, but then they're lighter, so maybe? My memory of my 911 is fading, I just remember those 911 doors always seemed to be worrisome about hitting something...)
A coupe with a frunk would really put it into a class by itself.
Could they keep the same design languages when cutting the cost? Do they want to? What's the relationship with the Roadster 3.0 going to be? The styling is going to have to be different, but even then, there's always the threat of falling into the 'Boxter/Caymen is just a detuned defeatured 911' territory (not that my 911 had terribly many 'features' beyond the killer clutch, gearbox and sweet engine - for an ICE, of course, for an ICE...).
Eric, I think the doors in the mock-up are short - are there any 2+2s with doors as short as 4 door sedans? I would have the rear wheels back by 2-3", the doors longer by about 4-5". That would start to get into 911 wheelbase length and door size. (Are the Roadsters' doors longer than the 911's? Don't seem to be, but then they're lighter, so maybe? My memory of my 911 is fading, I just remember those 911 doors always seemed to be worrisome about hitting something...)
A coupe with a frunk would really put it into a class by itself.
Could they keep the same design languages when cutting the cost? Do they want to? What's the relationship with the Roadster 3.0 going to be? The styling is going to have to be different, but even then, there's always the threat of falling into the 'Boxter/Caymen is just a detuned defeatured 911' territory (not that my 911 had terribly many 'features' beyond the killer clutch, gearbox and sweet engine - for an ICE, of course, for an ICE...).
Similar threads
