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

Gen3 @ $35k without any government voodoo

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Not seen it mentioned in this thread yet, Tesla is working with NHTSA to allow removal of the side mirrors. If you believe this article, that could produce gains of 5%. I'll the aerodynamic engineers decide whether this is realistic or not. If it's anywhere close to 5% and they can do it, that helps a lot with how far the Gen3 goes on a charge.

Tesla Wants To Eliminate Side Mirrors | CleanTechnica

RT
 
The Prius is also FWD... No FWD have rear-seat transmission humps
Many of them actually do.

07Prius_rearseat.JPG
 
Pretty sure Musk said 30% smaller.

Just looking at overall length...

The Model S is 196" long. A Gen3 sized 30% less would be 137". That is shorter than a Fiat 500! That's downright tiny.

So maybe the Gen3 will be more like 150 or 170" in length. Even that would be pretty small. For example, let's say the Gen3 is supposed to be size-similar to say a Toyota Camry. Well, the 2013 Camry is 189.2" long. Hmm, not much of a difference. Okay, how about a Honda Accord: 191", yikes! Still not very much shorter.

How about a . . . Honda Civic Sedan? 179.4". Sheesh.

Heh, I have trouble imagining a Gen3 20% smaller let alone 30% smaller.
 
Just looking at overall length...

The Model S is 196" long. A Gen3 sized 30% less would be 137". That is shorter than a Fiat 500! That's downright tiny.

So maybe the Gen3 will be more like 150 or 170" in length. Even that would be pretty small. For example, let's say the Gen3 is supposed to be size-similar to say a Toyota Camry. Well, the 2013 Camry is 189.2" long. Hmm, not much of a difference. Okay, how about a Honda Accord: 191", yikes! Still not very much shorter.

How about a . . . Honda Civic Sedan? 179.4". Sheesh.

Heh, I have trouble imagining a Gen3 20% smaller let alone 30% smaller.

Agree 30% will be challenging
For comparison purposes a BMW 3 Series:
Length: BMW is 182" vs the Model S's 196"
Width: BMW is 71.3" vs. 77" (mirrors folded) 86.2 mirrors not folded.
Height: BMW is 56.3" vs 56.5" (surprised at this)
Cargo: BMW has 13 cubic feet vs 26.3 (excluding Frunk)
 
Just looking at overall length...

The Model S is 196" long. A Gen3 sized 30% less would be 137". That is shorter than a Fiat 500! That's downright tiny.

So maybe the Gen3 will be more like 150 or 170" in length. Even that would be pretty small. For example, let's say the Gen3 is supposed to be size-similar to say a Toyota Camry. Well, the 2013 Camry is 189.2" long. Hmm, not much of a difference. Okay, how about a Honda Accord: 191", yikes! Still not very much shorter.

How about a . . . Honda Civic Sedan? 179.4". Sheesh.

Heh, I have trouble imagining a Gen3 20% smaller let alone 30% smaller.


There are multiple ways to interpret 30% smaller. 30% does not have to mean dimensions, it can mean materials or by density.

By weight Tesla is 4,647.3lb. A Gen III that weights 3253.11lb. Which is around the weight of a BMW 3 series.
 
There are multiple ways to interpret 30% smaller. 30% does not have to mean dimensions, it can mean materials or by density.

By weight Tesla is 4,647.3lb. A Gen III that weights 3253.11lb. Which is around the weight of a BMW 3 series.

Very true. I was pointing out how just focusing on a 30% reduction in one obvious dimension, length, doesn't quite work, though I suspect some there will be some reduction in the hood/frunk length, the wheelbase, and the rear area.

And yes, the weight will clearly be reduced. Either fewer battery cells, or, I hope, the next generation of cells, which when packaged in Gen3 provide at or near Model S type ranges but with significant weight and space reduction. And to continue my hoping, that might imply that the next-gen Model S might have a boost in range (perhaps Elon's "why not 500" mile range finally), to revitalize interest in the Model S once Gen3 comes out...

Just speculatin'.
 
Very true. I was pointing out how just focusing on a 30% reduction in one obvious dimension, length, doesn't quite work, though I suspect some there will be some reduction in the hood/frunk length, the wheelbase, and the rear area.

And yes, the weight will clearly be reduced. Either fewer battery cells, or, I hope, the next generation of cells, which when packaged in Gen3 provide at or near Model S type ranges but with significant weight and space reduction. And to continue my hoping, that might imply that the next-gen Model S might have a boost in range (perhaps Elon's "why not 500" mile range finally), to revitalize interest in the Model S once Gen3 comes out...

Just speculatin'.

I don't think they will use next gen batteries in the Gen III. But I do think that they will use denser cells and make the drivetrain more efficient. I am guessing it will use a 35kwh-40kwh battery which will weight around 400-500lb (same as an engine).

I also agree with the 500 mile model S and Roadster 2 which should easily be possible if you have 200 mile 35kwh-40kwh batteries that weight 400-500lb.
 
Something about testing methods of the day being more forgiving.
(and no two tunnels being alike)
I really would like to see Mythbusters (entertainment) or an official organization do an evaluation of how the bottom/best ten here actually stack up (vs. marketed numbers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Typical_drag_coefficients

It would require attempting to apply the same testing and doing some "educated" guessing/estimation as some of the vehicles in the list say "estimated" or "scale model" in the referenced source.


  • ...
  • 0.25 Peugeot 508 2011–present
  • 0.25 Lexus LS 430 (with air suspension) 2001–2006
  • 0.25 Audi A2 1.2 TDI 2001
  • 0.25 Honda Insight 1999-2006
  • 0.25 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 2013
  • 0.25 Toyota Prius 2010
  • 0.2455 (1:5) Tatra 77 1933[93]
  • 0.24 Tesla Model S Manufacturers estimate 2012[94]
  • 0.23 Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class 2013[95]
  • 0.212 (according to some sources 1:5)[96][97] Tatra T77A 1935[98][99] [100] [101]
  • 0.195 General Motors EV1 1996
 
Last edited:
I really would like to see Mythbusters (entertainment) or an official organization do an evaluation of how the bottom/best ten here actually stack up (vs. marketed numbers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Typical_drag_coefficients

It would require attempting to apply the same testing and doing some "educated" guessing/estimation as some of the vehicles in the list say "estimated" or "scale model" in the referenced source.

  • ...
  • 0.25 Peugeot 508 2011–present
  • 0.25 Lexus LS 430 (with air suspension) 2001–2006
  • 0.25 Audi A2 1.2 TDI 2001
  • 0.25 Honda Insight 1999-2006
  • 0.25 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 2013
  • 0.25 Toyota Prius 2010
  • 0.2455 (1:5) Tatra 77 1933[93]
  • 0.24 Tesla Model S Manufacturers estimate 2012[94]
  • 0.23 Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class 2013[95]
  • 0.212 (according to some sources 1:5)[96][97] Tatra T77A 1935[98][99] [100] [101]
  • 0.195 General Motors EV1 1996

That Tatra is a JOKE.
 
Supercharging ability has been mentioned, BUT-

Q: Should we expect Model E's to be able to access them for free, as the Model S's can? Think of the following:

*The network of SCs costs A LOT, and somehow they must be paid for. They are, intrinsically, quite a drag on TM's goal to get to a 25% gross margin.

*One way to circumvent that is to charge the Early Adopter Tax that all of us purchasing Model S's have voluntarily been forking over.

* In order to get the price of the Model E down to $35K or so would be to eliminate that "financing" of the SCs that is an invisible item in the Model S's.


Against all that, there understandably could be consumer backlash (it's too bad "forelash" isn't a word, because such a critter would work marvelously in this context) for a vehicle whose owners couldn't take advantage of the long-distance driving advantages that a free SC network provides. I find it distasteful to envision a situation in which a "wealthy Model S owner" gets sthose electrons for free, whereas in the adjacent slot, a "plebeian Model E owner" is having to fork over her rent check for enough juice to make it back home. That would be an unfortunate scenario.
 
Supercharging ability has been mentioned, BUT-

Q: Should we expect Model E's to be able to access them for free, as the Model S's can? Think of the following:

*The network of SCs costs A LOT, and somehow they must be paid for. They are, intrinsically, quite a drag on TM's goal to get to a 25% gross margin.

*One way to circumvent that is to charge the Early Adopter Tax that all of us purchasing Model S's have voluntarily been forking over.

* In order to get the price of the Model E down to $35K or so would be to eliminate that "financing" of the SCs that is an invisible item in the Model S's.


Against all that, there understandably could be consumer backlash (it's too bad "forelash" isn't a word, because such a critter would work marvelously in this context) for a vehicle whose owners couldn't take advantage of the long-distance driving advantages that a free SC network provides. I find it distasteful to envision a situation in which a "wealthy Model S owner" gets sthose electrons for free, whereas in the adjacent slot, a "plebeian Model E owner" is having to fork over her rent check for enough juice to make it back home. That would be an unfortunate scenario.

Since Musk said it himself, he is not a fan of charging people every time they charge. So I am pretty sure superchargers will be just like now, pay 2k, get charging for life. Though that sum might drop for the Gen III since most of the initial expenses would already be paid for. So most likely you would have 35k base price and need to pay 1-2k more for supercharging. Superchargers will be free forever for everyone.

I mean remember when Musk said he is willing to license the supercharger network to other EVs but they would also have to pay upfront as he does not believe in charging for charges?
 
I really would like to see Mythbusters (entertainment) or an official organization do an evaluation of how the bottom/best ten here actually stack up (vs. marketed numbers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Typical_drag_coefficients

It would require attempting to apply the same testing and doing some "educated" guessing/estimation as some of the vehicles in the list say "estimated" or "scale model" in the referenced source.

  • 0.25 Peugeot 508 2011–present
  • 0.25 Lexus LS 430 (with air suspension) 2001–2006
  • 0.25 Audi A2 1.2 TDI 2001
  • 0.25 Honda Insight 1999-2006
  • 0.25 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 2013
  • 0.25 Toyota Prius 2010
  • 0.2455 (1:5) Tatra 77 1933[93]
  • 0.24 Tesla Model S Manufacturers estimate 2012[94]
  • 0.23 Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class 2013[95]
  • 0.212 (according to some sources 1:5)[96][97] Tatra T77A 1935[98][99] [100] [101]
  • 0.195 General Motors EV1 1996

Don't forget the Mythbusters Golf Ball car:wink: Amazingly it did very well during their testing which really surprised them
golf car.PNG
 
Since Musk said it himself, he is not a fan of charging people every time they charge. So I am pretty sure superchargers will be just like now, pay 2k, get charging for life. Though that sum might drop for the Gen III since most of the initial expenses would already be paid for. So most likely you would have 35k base price and need to pay 1-2k more for supercharging. Superchargers will be free forever for everyone.
Or the G3/E might have to pay more upfront since the large volume of cars means Tesla would need to build even more superchargers to service them. Busy superchargers are already getting clogged up with 16K cars on the road, what happens when there are 150K-300K+ cars on the road?
 
There are multiple ways to interpret 30% smaller. 30% does not have to mean dimensions, it can mean materials or by density.

Correct.... or volume.

A sphere with only a 10% reduction in diameter has a 27% reduction in volume. So a vehicle might be shortened far less than 30% in each dimension, yet reduce it's overall volume by 30%.