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.
Why are you expecting the smaller, lighter G3/E to require the same pack size as the larger heavier S?
I should say similar, rather than same.

Leaf with 25kWh is 3300 lb. S60 is 4500. Gen 3 will be a midsize car larger than Leaf with a much larger pack. So, I expect 3800 or so lb. That gives us about 700 pounds less than S or about 15%. Let us say that increase the range by 7% - or for the same range we need 7% less battery or about 4 kWh. So, the pack will have to be atleast 55 kWh. Compared to 60 kWh, it saves them about $2k (and some weight) - so they may go for it.
 
Those of you hatin' on the door handles should be prepared.

You have to realize that door handles are one of those things that Elon obsesses about. Both cars have unique "invisible" designs. Both spent an exorbitant amount of money to get implemented. It's unlikely the BluE Star will have normal exterior door handles.
 
I should say similar, rather than same.

Leaf with 25kWh is 3300 lb. S60 is 4500. Gen 3 will be a midsize car larger than Leaf with a much larger pack. So, I expect 3800 or so lb. That gives us about 700 pounds less than S or about 15%. Let us say that increase the range by 7% - or for the same range we need 7% less battery or about 4 kWh. So, the pack will have to be atleast 55 kWh. Compared to 60 kWh, it saves them about $2k (and some weight) - so they may go for it.
Musk has said G3/E will be around 20% smaller than S. S 60 uses 300wh/Mi to get 200 miles from 60kWh, taking 20% directly off that means 240wh/Mi for 200 miles is 48kWh pack size. I'm assuming the G3/E will have better aero than the S and could possibly get even better than 240wh/Mi. I expect it to come with between 45-50kWh, unless cell prices drop a lot.
 
45-50 kWh would be my guess too.

The new Tesla-powered RAV 4 EV (which, according to Musk, could/should have been priced a fair bit lower than nearly $50k) has about 42 usable kWh but is obviously a much heavier, less aerodynamic vehicle and yet is yielding 125 miles in the real world.

I think a slippery, light G3/E can easily eke out 200 miles from 45-50 kWh (225-250 Wh/mile).
 
I don't know, for the past 6 months whenever it was brought up, Elon would say it was going to be around $30,000. Then it start to go to 30-35 and now a definite 35,000 without credits. My wife and have no debt, except for the house, but we do have a 3 year old. That's like a $500-600 monthly payment. We both make over $45,000 a year. What about people who make less, even $35,000. I don't see how this is going to sell to the masses, people are not even buying a $25,000 EV right now. My reach for the Gen III is slowly moving away. I guess when I buy an EV it will have to be a LEAF or something like that.
Different people have different definitions of the masses. People in higher income ranges really don't have a strong grasp on what % of people are living in lower income ranges.
If you are like me you can subtract the ~$350 a month you were spending in fuel. That makes the car payment ~$150-$250 a month. Which is CHEAP for a new car.

Not to mention I have no worries about an electric car doing 500k miles. Where my ICE I was worried I was approaching 150k miles.
I took him to mean the $500-600 monthly payment was for the 3 year old. ;)

4. If the 17" monitor can be made to fit one can argue that by the extra cost for software design might outweigh the savings on a smaller 15" monitor.
5. Ultra high fidelity sound. Not getting rave reviews in the MS anyway so why not include a good basic sound system and just let the after market vendors accommodate buyers with luxury sound requirements.
If the resolution of the 15" screen is the same as the current 17", there might not need to be any software redesign, if the buttons and such still all meet a reasonable minimum physical size. A 15" screen is still pretty big.

I expect them to use the same sized battery 60kWh to get 200 miles.

It would be an interesting exercise to see if added cost of Aluminum is cheaper than needed extra battery. We can assume that every 1% in weight reduction gets 0.5% more range.

So, if more steel means 100 pounds more - that would be 3% of the weight (lets say 3k pounds, total). That would reduce range by 1.3% or 3 miles - which would need about 1 kWh extra battery or about $250. Is going to Aluminum cheaper than $250 ? (I know there is a little bit extra weight because of 1 kWh battery, but we can ignore that for the given how rough the calculation is).
100 lbs of steel costs ~$37, per steel prices, price of steel, 2013 world steel prices, costs, pricing
100lbs of aluminum costs ~$92 per Aluminum Prices, London Metal Exchange (LME) Aluminum Alloy Prices, COMEX and Shanghai Aluminum Prices

So it's 2.5x as expensive, but the weight savings are worth it in reduced battery, going by your numbers. I suppose at $11/lb we're probably not in the range where Titanium is worth it.
 
Musk has said G3/E will be around 20% smaller than S. S 60 uses 300wh/Mi to get 200 miles from 60kWh, taking 20% directly off that means 240wh/Mi for 200 miles is 48kWh pack size. I'm assuming the G3/E will have better aero than the S and could possibly get even better than 240wh/Mi. I expect it to come with between 45-50kWh, unless cell prices drop a lot.

For long-distance travel aerodynamics are more important because you travel at higher speed. G3 will likely not have better aero than the Model S. I don't see any significant reduction in capacity coming, especially with prices down at $200/kWh or less and any reduction in capacity hurting the speed of charge. I expect more focus on cheapening the base model by decontenting or using cheaper, heavier components.
 
For long-distance travel aerodynamics are more important because you travel at higher speed.
Agree.
G3 will likely not have better aero than the Model S.
Disagree. Aero is composed of cd and area, so even if the cd if the G3/E is the same, which I doubt, the surface area should be smaller, which would provide better overall aerodynamics.
I don't see any significant reduction in capacity coming, especially with prices down at $200/kWh or less and any reduction in capacity hurting the speed of charge.
I assume you mean "increase" in cell capacity? Certainly Musk has projected and is counting on increased energy density of future cells, which should also reduce the cost per kwh, and should not necessarily affect charging speeds.
 
Those of you hatin' on the door handles should be prepared.

You have to realize that door handles are one of those things that Elon obsesses about. Both cars have unique "invisible" designs. Both spent an exorbitant amount of money to get implemented. It's unlikely the BluE Star will have normal exterior door handles.

For me it has nothing to do with whether I like them or not. They are rather cool. The question is how will Tesla keep the cost down? Smooth manual door handles would certainly be less expensive. If they can keep the cost at $39,999 with the automatic door handles that would be even better.
 
Agree.Disagree. Aero is composed of cd and area, so even if the cd if the G3/E is the same, which I doubt, the surface area should be smaller, which would provide better overall aerodynamics.
We will have to see what Tesla does. In general it is easier to have longer cars be more aerodynamic. It is also easier to get more headroom in a long aerodynamic car. With a shorter car they have to either sacrifice rear headroom or some aero. I think it is not unreasonable to assume same aero for both S & E.

- - - Updated - - -

Musk has said G3/E will be around 20% smaller than S. S 60 uses 300wh/Mi to get 200 miles from 60kWh, taking 20% directly off that means 240wh/Mi for 200 miles is 48kWh pack size. I'm assuming the G3/E will have better aero than the S and could possibly get even better than 240wh/Mi. I expect it to come with between 45-50kWh, unless cell prices drop a lot.
20% smaller doesn't mean 20% more efficient. Leaf gets 250 w/mile (using the 21 kWh useable capacity figure). If E gets that (or even slightly better), then add back the unuseable capacity, you will be above 55 kWh.
 
Agree.Disagree. Aero is composed of cd and area, so even if the cd if the G3/E is the same, which I doubt, the surface area should be smaller, which would provide better overall aerodynamics.

If you want to seat 4 or 5 comfortably, while sitting on a battery pack and retaining conventional looks for a compact, something has to give at the back. They'll gain by having a narrower car and shorter car but lose on suboptimal shape. Even if it could be a bit more aerodynamic, I think they would be willing to sacrifice aero to lower cost and gain practicality.

I assume you mean "increase" in cell capacity? Certainly Musk has projected and is counting on increased energy density of future cells, which should also reduce the cost per kwh, and should not necessarily affect charging speeds.

No, I mean I wouldn't expect any significant reduction in battery capacity compared to the model S partly because a ceiling of $200/kWh means the maximum cost savings are $2,400 for 12kWh. There aren't any huge savings there.

The key issue to me is a critical dependency on the Supercharger network. Reducing the capacity would reduce charging mph and charging mph needs to get better so that Superchargers can support a higher volume of cars. Tesla also can't play silly games with EPA because you have to be able to go SC to SC at well above the highway test average speed.

When you put everything together, my view is that Tesla will stick with 60kWh because of Supercharging and then give away some of the aerodynamic and weight optimizations in the Model S plus some of the amenities so they can lower the overall manufacturing cost. They ca akways use "optionality" to allow buyers to upgrade to improve performance and reduce weight. I'll take the base plus heat pump plus heated seats and maybe defer Supercharging until we figure out how whether it'd be worth it. ;)
 
The key issue to me is a critical dependency on the Supercharger network. Reducing the capacity would reduce charging mph and charging mph needs to get better so that Superchargers can support a higher volume of cars. Tesla also can't play silly games with EPA because you have to be able to go SC to SC at well above the highway test average speed.
They just need to up the charging rate (in terms of nC) a bit - not necessarily reduce the charging mph.
 
I think the fancy door handles will go; evidence of any range improvement because of them has been flimsy at best. They've also been a significant service cost sink.

Screen will surely be smaller (17" will be too big for a 3-series sized car anyway). I don't see much of the software from the Model S going away; it should just be made to work with a smaller screen somehow.

Maybe, no rear AC vents to save the cost of ducting, etc.

The visors will be made even smaller?! :tongue:

The retractable door handles are part of the aerodynamics which theoretically increases the range. Is it significant? How much more/less range do you get if you have flush door handles like on the S vs. indented door handles like most other cars?

I wonder how much safety will have to be compromised to get the cost of the car down.

Smaller car, smaller motor, smaller frunk (or maybe no frunk).

Whether battery prices come down or there is new technology, most of the cost savings is going to have to be on the battery.
 
Musk has said G3/E will be around 20% smaller than S. S 60 uses 300wh/Mi to get 200 miles from 60kWh, taking 20% directly off that means 240wh/Mi for 200 miles is 48kWh pack size. I'm assuming the G3/E will have better aero than the S and could possibly get even better than 240wh/Mi. I expect it to come with between 45-50kWh, unless cell prices drop a lot.

Pretty sure Musk said 30% smaller.


Things that will most likely go are the aerospace bolts and some of the boron steel. Musk said he can remove some of that without any safety implications. Also, using more dense cells means less weight.

But there is also room for improvement in efficiency. As I pointed to above. With improvement to efficiency it is possible to get 200 miles with 30 kwh battery. I estimate that the Gen III will use a 35-40kwh battery.
 
They just need to up the charging rate (in terms of nC) a bit - not necessarily reduce the charging mph.

The problem is that the Supercharger isn't fast enough yet. I don't mean so because of impatient drivers, but because faster charging can serve more cars. They've already had congestion issues and haven't even sold 20k, let alone 100k.

Battery tech rule: price, energy density, power density, stability. Pick 3 of 4. So, what are you going to give up in order to both reduce capacity while at the same time inceeasing the charging rate not only to match the current rate but then also double it again to cut the time at Superchargers.
 
Battery tech rule: price, energy density, power density, stability. Pick 3 of 4. So, what are you going to give up in order to both reduce capacity while at the same time inceeasing the charging rate not only to match the current rate but then also double it again to cut the time at Superchargers.
You don't need to double the rate - we are talking about 55 kWh instead of 60 kWh.
 
We will have to see what Tesla does. In general it is easier to have longer cars be more aerodynamic. It is also easier to get more headroom in a long aerodynamic car. With a shorter car they have to either sacrifice rear headroom or some aero. I think it is not unreasonable to assume same aero for both S & E.
EV1 achieved an extreme cd of .195, the S is .24, and the LEAF is .29. The Prius is .25. I'd almost guarantee that the G3/E will have a better cd than the LEAF, and being lower, should have less frontal area. If the LEAF is getting 250wh/Mi then the G3/E should do better. The Roadster, with a worse cd than the S and the LEAF still managed around 220 wh/Mi because of the smaller frontal area.


20% smaller doesn't mean 20% more efficient.
It might, in fact I'd say it better. 240 wh/Mi is not out of reach by any means.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to seat 4 or 5 comfortably, while sitting on a battery pack and retaining conventional looks for a compact, something has to give at the back. They'll gain by having a narrower car and shorter car but lose on suboptimal shape. Even if it could be a bit more aerodynamic, I think they would be willing to sacrifice aero to lower cost and gain practicality.
The Tesla battery pack is thinner than conventional transmission humps, so a low seating position should not be difficult to achieve. I've never been in the back seat of a Prius but it has a very good cd and the back seat doesn't looked cramped.


No, I mean I wouldn't expect any significant reduction in battery capacity compared to the model S partly because a ceiling of $200/kWh means the maximum cost savings are $2,400 for 12kWh. There aren't any huge savings there.
That's about 7% on a 35K car, and if you're aiming for 20-25% profit margin that's a significant chunk.
The key issue to me is a critical dependency on the Supercharger network. Reducing the capacity would reduce charging mph and charging mph needs to get better so that Superchargers can support a higher volume of cars. Tesla also can't play silly games with EPA because you have to be able to go SC to SC at well above the highway test average speed.
A smaller pack will charge at the same speed as a larger pack at the same proportional C rate. If the new cell has a lower effective internal resistance then it could actually charge faster than existing packs, without increasing the power of the supercharger.
When you put everything together, my view is that Tesla will stick with 60kWh because of Supercharging and then give away some of the aerodynamic and weight optimizations in the Model S plus some of the amenities so they can lower the overall manufacturing cost. They ca akways use "optionality" to allow buyers to upgrade to improve performance and reduce weight. I'll take the base plus heat pump plus heated seats and maybe defer Supercharging until we figure out how whether it'd be worth it. ;)
You may be right, but I think there is room for Tesla to improve the aerodynamic profile of the vehicle and still retain good overall utility.
 
Those of you hatin' on the door handles should be prepared.

You have to realize that door handles are one of those things that Elon obsesses about. Both cars have unique "invisible" designs. Both spent an exorbitant amount of money to get implemented. It's unlikely the BluE Star will have normal exterior door handles.
Pelican handles?

- - - Updated - - -

Different people have different definitions of the masses. People in higher income ranges really don't have a strong grasp on what % of people are living in lower income ranges.
People on forums generalize about what other people grasp.