Gen3 @ $35k without any government voodoo

[evme]

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%.

Yes, that as well.

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?

I doubt. The biggest cost is the initial deployment. Adding more terminals tends to be cheaper and easier then getting all the paperwork done and doing the initial wiring. The cost to scale the stations should be cheaper. Also, by the time the Gen III comes out, I expect more level 3 chargers will be put up. So there are 3 things to look at:

1) Tesla will most likely get the 5-10 minute charging working by then which means less need for more terminals.

2) If my hunch about 35kwh-40kwh is correct, it will be much easier as you can charge 2 Gen III for same amount as 1 Gen II

3) At 35kwh-40kwh even a 50kwh level 3 charger can charge you to full in around 40 minutes.

 

[JRP3]

I doubt. The biggest cost is the initial deployment. Adding more terminals tends to be cheaper and easier then getting all the paperwork done and doing the initial wiring. The cost to scale the stations should be cheaper.

Depends on the size of the feed into the existing superchargers. If it needs to be upgraded to handle the extra power then it's about the same as a new facility.

Also, by the time the Gen III comes out, I expect more level 3 chargers will be put up. So there are 3 things to look at:

1) Tesla will most likely get the 5-10 minute charging working by then which means less need for more terminals.

5-10 minute charging time means much larger power demands, which means costly upgrades. Frankly I don't think we'll see 5 minute charging by then, probably not even 10 minute.

2) If my hunch about 35kwh-40kwh is correct, it will be much easier as you can charge 2 Gen III for same amount as 1 Gen II

I'm pretty sure it will be at least 45kWh, but even so, we are talking about more than 10 times as many G3's, plus an increasing number of S and X's on the road. A few more faster terminals aren't going to cut it to meet that demand.

3) At 35kwh-40kwh even a 50kwh level 3 charger can charge you to full in around 40 minutes.

Sure but then those aren't superchargers, and as I said I'm pretty sure you're underestimating pack size at least a little bit.

 

[JGard]

Many of them actually do.

View attachment 29309

It's a hump, yes, but not due to a transmission

 

[viperboy]

1) Tesla will most likely get the 5-10 minute charging working by then which means less need for more terminals.

2) If my hunch about 35kwh-40kwh is correct, it will be much easier as you can charge 2 Gen III for same amount as 1 Gen II

From a business point of view, they've already sunk money into developing the 60kwh (and some into the 40kwh). That's my guess. Given the lighter car, it will have less range than an S, sure, but not a direct coorelation. Between slight increases in battery weight, car weight, aerodynamics, battery efficiency and smaller / better tires (i just threw that one in there), my guesstimation is 40kwh is looking around 160-180 miles rated, 60kwh would be 210-230 rated. (extrapolation, superchargins is only available on the 60s, which is more money AND gets you between SCs given their current distance apart)

As for the charging, you need less juice, correct. Dont forget the rate slows as the battery gets full.

 

[CheeseFrog]

I'll second that. All my FWD cars have had a hump in the rear. It's for strength; not a driveline.

All of the above actually. Add to that the fact that some FWD platforms have AWD variants which do require the drive-shaft tunnel.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I though it was for the exhaust and catalytic converter (while maintaining a flat underbody).

 

[EVNow]

2) If my hunch about 35kwh-40kwh is correct, it will be much easier as you can charge 2 Gen III for same amount as 1 Gen II

No way it will be a 35-40kWh car. You just can't get "real" 200 miles out of that in a car larger than Leaf.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No way it will be a 35-40kWh car. You just can't get "real" 200 miles out of that in a car larger than Leaf.

Judging by how the Model S was announced, I would assume the car would have a "Tesla" 200 mile range, meaning a conversion of 300-320 miles = 265 EPA miles. So about 165-175 EPA miles. So roughly 2x as much range as the Leaf at 84 miles. Given the Leaf has 21kWh usable, it should be possible with ~40kWh assuming Tesla does better on aero (will have be lower than 0.28 and/or lower frontal area).

 

[JRP3]

Though Musk has said something to the effect of 200 mile usable range in most conditions.

 

[evme]

No way it will be a 35-40kWh car. You just can't get "real" 200 miles out of that in a car larger than Leaf.

Sure you can, keep in mind this car will be 30% lighter than a Model S. Then there will be aerodynamic improvements in the car itself and by removing rear view mirrors. Then there can be improvements in battery discharge efficiency and motor efficiency. Because remember Gen III means its a new platform.

 

[JRP3]

Sure you can, keep in mind this car will be 30% lighter than a Model S.

Where do you get this idea?

Then there will be aerodynamic improvements in the car itself and by removing rear view mirrors.

No evidence yet that this will be allowed.

Then there can be improvements in battery discharge efficiency and motor efficiency.

Not at any significant level.

 

[Steven Loyens]

http://www.egear.nl/elon-musk-geeft-info-over-tesla-gen-iii/

More info about the Gen III.
They predict a 25.000$ price.
Hope the car will come sooner than later. The ICE will be out the door that much quicker for me!
The main article is in Dutch but the clip is English spoken.

 

[Grendal]

Then there will be aerodynamic improvements in the car itself and by removing rear view mirrors.

If legislation allows, this might be an option. I doubt it will be automatically included. I think you would actually lose a portion of sales with this included. You, as an EV enthusiast, might understand that the improved aerodynamics would help increase range but the general consumer will not automatically understand this. Some of them will expect normal mirrors and get nervous that they are missing. This is the car that needs to sell to everyone. I'd say to include it in the "tech package" because then it is a technical option. All of that assumes that they manage to get the legislation for mirrors removed.

 

[JRP3]

They predict a 25.000$ price.

No way.

 

[jaccozilla]

Not sure where the $25,000 came from. The video makes no mention of it. Maybe just a typo?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Not sure where the $25,000 came from. The video makes no mention of it. Maybe just a typo?

Euros probably.

 

[aronth5]

Euros probably.

Makes some sense. At todays' rate 25k Euros equals $33,750

 

[Grendal]

I'd prefer government voodoo.

 

[VolkerP]

You, as an EV enthusiast, might understand that the improved aerodynamics would help increase range but the general consumer will not automatically understand this. Some of them will expect normal mirrors and get nervous that they are missing. This is the car that needs to sell to everyone.

I think you have a point here. After all, most car manufacturers introduce technological advancements in their top level models. AC, ABS, parking distance sensors, whatnot assistant system, you name it. Average car buyers get to hear that such things exists, and are used to the concept when it "trickles down" to their size of new car budget.

 

[igotzzoom]

Honestly, I add about a minimum 20-30 percent fudge factor to any "estimated" prices for Tesla products. Remember the Model S was supposed to be $50,000? So if they're targeting $35k for the next-gen model, I'm thinking it'll realistically be around $50k when it's all said and done for a desirable model with decent range and equipment. I hope I'm wrong, as I'd much rather pay $35k. I'd be happy with low-mid 40s.