Initial 75 kwh? Don't think so.

[Mergoscia]

If you can find it, let us know, that'd be very interesting especially as much of the cost is in the weight of materials used.

I will, but when I have time. Sure not the next days.

 

[JeffK]

@BAven8068 and JeffK, Both of you are right. For the same reason and for safety-issues I am pressing for a M3 P85D.

Here's a P85 from 2012... the performance Model 3 will likely be lighter, quicker, and more maneuverable than this:

by comparison an P85D model 3, if such a thing existed, would have worse maneuverability than a P75D model 3 simply due to increased mass.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

"There are a lot of people (myself included) that want the max range" ProphetM said.
I am one of them. But before Elon last said 75 was the max, he left somewhat higher open, by saying earlier 100 was not possible.
Therefore I was counting on 85 as max, as well because 85 is the serious beginning in model S. So models wouldn't overlap.
I am a reservationholder, but one who lives in Europe. By the time, in over a year or one and half, I can order my car I hope 85 will be one of the options.
Cause 75 batterypack is too small for fast reactions needed in upcoming accidents. The 3 will weigh around 2000 kg or 4409lb 3.929600oz . That's heavy for a car of that size. So smooth and fast handling will be of an issue.

Have you driven a base Model S? Approximately the same acceleration of a Model 3. Anything quicker is just smile factor. Sure, great to have but 0-60 in 5.5 or so will get you out of more trouble than the VAST majority of cars on the road.

Dan

 

[Mergoscia]

Here's a P85 from 2012... the performance Model 3 will likely be lighter, quicker, and more maneuverable than this:

by comparison an P85D model 3, if such a thing existed, would have worse maneuverability than a P75D model 3 simply due to increased mass.

You have more power with a 85, so that equates more or less. You can compare the slalom a bit with what I mean with maneuverability and accelleration in an upcoming accident. You will react more quick, sudden and a bit extreme yet totally controlled, is my experience. It is the combination of maneuverability and acceleration in those situations which do the trick to stay alive.

 

[JeffK]

You have more power with a 85, so that equates more or less. You can compare the slalom a bit with what I mean with maneuverability and accelleration in an upcoming accident. You will react more quick, sudden and a bit extreme yet totally controlled, is my experience. It is the combination of maneuverability and acceleration in those situations which do the trick to stay alive.

I would argue that a Model S85 will have less power per unit weight than a 75 kWh Model 3 and the 75 kWh model 3 will be more maneuverable.

If all other things are equal the car with the higher power to mass ratio is always going to win in a comparison of maneuverability and acceleration

 

[Mergoscia]

Have you driven a base Model S? Approximately the same acceleration of a Model 3. Anything quicker is just smile factor. Sure, great to have but 0-60 in 5.5 or so will get you out of more trouble than the VAST majority of cars on the road.

Dan

Yes, I did several testdrives in different model S at the same stretch of road. I tested all of them on sudden moves at speed, even a P90D, but found the P85D the one which performed the best in the imaginary upcoming accident bound to happen. But still did not performe as I wanted/ expect in emergency situations.

 

[JeffK]

Yes, I did several testdrives in different model S at the same stretch of road. I tested all of them on sudden moves at speed, even a P90D, but found the P85D the one which performed the best in the imaginary upcoming accident bound to happen. But still did not performe as I wanted/ expect in emergency situations.

... and why do you think that is?

 

[Swampgator]

You have more power with a 85, so that equates more or less. You can compare the slalom a bit with what I mean with maneuverability and accelleration in an upcoming accident. You will react more quick, sudden and a bit extreme yet totally controlled, is my experience. It is the combination of maneuverability and acceleration in those situations which do the trick to stay alive.

This is only an assumption based upon your current knowledge and all things being equal.
If the P75D Model 3 has higher energy density than the P85D MS (It does) that means much less weight than the 10 kwh would give to the MS. If on top of that the discharge C rate of the 2170 batteries is higher than the 18650s, the 75kwh pack in the M3 may be able to deliver as much power to motors as the 95 pack in the MS.
If on top of that the motors and/or invertor on the M3 have some improvements over MS, then the P75D M3 may have similar acceleration to the P85D MS while also offering more nimble handling.

 

[Mergoscia]

I would argue that a Model S85 will have less power per unit weight than a 75 kWh Model 3 and the 75 kWh model 3 will be more maneuverable.

If all other things are equal the car with the higher power to mass ratio is always going to win in a comparison of maneuverability and acceleration

That is why I want to have a M3 P85D instead of a M3 P75D

 

[JeffK]

That is why I want to have a M3 P85D instead of a M3 P75D

But in the same breath you said you liked the P85D better than the P90D... why?

 

[Mergoscia]

This is only an assumption based upon your current knowledge and all things being equal.
If the P75D Model 3 has higher energy density than the P85D MS (It does) that means much less weight than the 10 kwh would give to the MS. If on top of that the discharge C rate of the 2170 batteries is higher than the 18650s, the 75kwh pack in the M3 may be able to deliver as much power to motors as the 95 pack in the MS.
If on top of that the motors and/or invertor on the M3 have some improvements over MS, then the P75D M3 may have similar acceleration to the P85D MS while also offering more nimble handling.

With that you may be right! But still I would like to be sure of the power.

 

[Mergoscia]

... and why do you think that is?

The power mass ratio, if my english is correct here?

 

[JeffK]

The power mass ratio, if my english is correct here?

Exactly No worries, the P75D is going to be powerful, quick, and nimble.

 

[Mergoscia]

But in the same breath you said you liked the P85D better than the P90D... why?

No I did not say I like the P85D better than the P90D in general. Only at the specific situation I feel the P85D performes easier and quicker than the P90D.

 

[Mergoscia]

Exactly No worries, the P75D is going to be powerful, quick, and nimble.

Yet again. With that you may be right! But still I would like to be sure of the power. So before I buy or order the M3 I will testdrive the two versions. We'll see.

 

[Runt8]

Yet again. With that you may be right! But still I would like to be sure of the power. So before I buy or order the M3 I will testdrive the two versions. We'll see.

I think I found a better car for you:

 

[Swampgator]

Mergoscia,

As you are in the Netherlands I suspect we will have lots of instrumented tests prior to you needing to make a decision. Deliveries overseas will not happen in any appreciable degree until mid 2018.

 

[IdaX]

Assuming the 75kwh battery and that 70kwh is useful, you've got to get the car down to 233.33 watt hour per mile. That's pretty low.

We can calculate what the Model 3 should get in terms of Wh/mi, if you don't mind my dropping some science on your ass . The units Wh/mi, if you simplify them, come out as just a force in Newtons. And at speed, the force required to keep a Tesla moving at that speed is proportional to v^2 as it's mostly drag. F_drag goes as Cd*A*v^2, where Cd is the drag coefficient, v the velocity, and A the cross-sectional area. Let's assume that the Model 3 will get the same Cd as an S: Cd=0.21. Then its force, or Wh/mi, will scale with the S's as their relative cross-sectional areas.

Width = 1.885m and height = 1.435m for the Model 3 according to Wikipedia. Leads to a cross-sectional area of 2.705 m^2 if it were square. I realize that it's not, but so long as it has the same profile as the S then the difference from square will come out in the wash.

For the S, the width is 1.964m and the height 1.435m. So area is 2.818 m^2.

So by that calculation, then, the Model 3 won't get all THAT much better Wh/mi than an S: it would do just 4% better in fact. Assuming highway driving. If a Model S75 gets 259 miles of range, then, I would expect that a 3-75 would get something like 270 miles of range. Could get a smidge more if it's lighter (but maybe it won't be with all that steel instead of aluminum). Not the magic 300, but not too shabby.

 

[JeffK]

We can calculate what the Model 3 should get in terms of Wh/mi, if you don't mind my dropping some science on your ass . The units Wh/mi, if you simplify them, come out as just a force in Newtons. And at speed, the force required to keep a Tesla moving at that speed is proportional to v^2 as it's mostly drag. F_drag goes as Cd*A*v^2, where Cd is the drag coefficient, v the velocity, and A the cross-sectional area. Let's assume that the Model 3 will get the same Cd as an S: Cd=0.21. Then its force, or Wh/mi, will scale with the S's as their relative cross-sectional areas.

Width = 1.885m and height = 1.435m for the Model 3 according to Wikipedia. Leads to a cross-sectional area of 2.705 m^2 if it were square. I realize that it's not, but so long as it has the same profile as the S then the difference from square will come out in the wash.

For the S, the width is 1.964m and the height 1.435m. So area is 2.818 m^2.

So by that calculation, then, the Model 3 won't get all THAT much better Wh/mi than an S: it would do just 4% better in fact. Assuming highway driving. If a Model S75 gets 259 miles of range, then, I would expect that a 3-75 would get something like 270 miles of range. Could get a smidge more if it's lighter (but maybe it won't be with all that steel instead of aluminum). Not the magic 300, but not too shabby.

It's lighter for sure...

 

[IdaX]

It's lighter for sure...

Doesn't matter except when accelerating. So weight won't affect highway mileage unless you're going uphill or downhill.