Lo-Drag: Cd < 0.2

[Twiglett]

I believe the BOLT (snip) Meanwhile, Tesla Motors will offer compelling products.

That was a mega post, but worthwhile reading nonetheless.
The very last point is what I keep picking up in these conversations about the Model 3
So many folks keep connecting "mass market" to Ford or GM, but as you mentioned its premium not run of the mill.
The other popular misquote is that the Model 3 will be "affordable", when most of the quotes I have seen are actually "more affordable" meaning more affordable than the Model S or X
Not affordable like a Corolla

 

[wdolson]

Yes, but that was a mistake. Their cars were designed to meet certain EPA range goals under the 2-cycle testing scheme. But they achieved lower results because there was a different, 5-cycle test in place by the time of their release. So, the Model S 40 had a 139 mile range, instead of the 160 mile range they hoped for originally. Tesla Motors is fully aware now that it is the capability of the vehicle that is most important to Customers. Not its relative economy due to price point. They fully expected the Model S 40 would be their best seller. They were wrong. Instead, the grand majority of buyers got the Model S 85. They will not make that mistake with the Model ≡. Tesla Motors will make the greatest possible amount of range available for $35,000 in the base configuration. I expect that will yield in the neighborhood of 250 miles range.

Tesla Motors cannot bother to worry about those people who can't afford their cars at all. They build Premium cars. They will be marketing the Model ≡ to people who are considering Cadillac ATS, AUDI A4, Jaguar XE, Lexus IS, and specifically the BMW 3-Series. Those cars are almost NEVER available on the lots of an 'independent franchised dealership' in their actual, manufacturer specified, base configuration. Instead, they will be loaded to the hilt with luxo packages that push their prices several thousands above the mark. You will be able to order a Tesla Model ≡ with ZERO options if you want. That is the proper option for those to whom $1,000 'makes a difference' -- they must exercise self control. Meanwhile, Tesla Motors will offer compelling products.

The Model 3 might end up compared with mid-size luxury cars, but I expect a large number of buyers will be moving up from much less expansive cars. I believe something like 1/2 of Model S buyers have never driven a car worth more than $60K before. (I'll be one of them one day, my current car cost $22K new.) Because of Tesla's technology, performance, economy, etc. there are a lot of people who stretch their budgets to buy one. The number of people who can afford a $100K car, but it's either a major stretch of their budget, or they just choose to drive cheaper cars is very limited, however there are more people out there driving Camrys and Fusions who could afford a $45-$50K car (maybe with some budget stretch), but choose not to.

 

[Red Sage]

Twiglett: I agree. It takes a tremendous amount of manufacturing capacity to offer a vehicle such as the Toyota Corolla, Volkswagen Golf, or Ford Focus in numbers approaching or exceeding 1,000,000 units per year, worldwide. It takes similar capacity to offer a Chevrolet Silverado, Ford F-Series, or RAM to satisfy the needs for full-sized pickups in the US. Those that have been literally complaining about Tesla Motors starting on the high end, saying they should not have brought out anything until they could compete in volume with a full product line of vehicles under $25,000 should never be allowed to manage any company. I fully expect that those who would ordinarily be shopping for Camry, Accord, Fusion, Altima, Malibu, Sonata, or Optima will (if given the opportunity) stop by a Tesla Store on a whim to test drive the Model ≡. And the result will be that Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, Chevrolet, Hyundai, and Kia dealerships will see that their bread-and-butter vehicles will take quite a bit longer to move off the lot than they are used to seeing. They'll blame it on the economy... Until they realize how quickly sales are increasing for Tesla Motors vehicles.

wdolson: I agree. Just as people who typically would not have purchased anything beyond the 40,000-to-$50,000 range chose to go up-market to the Model S... Those who would typically only spend in the $20,000-to-$25,000 range will choose to go up-market to the Model ≡. One thing that is interesting is that while the average sale price for a new car is over $31,000 currently, most new cars sold in the US are around $22,000. I believe that if Tesla Motors is able to cut their internal cost to below $100 per kWh, they will be able to offer a 60 kWh capacity vehicle for about $25,000.

 

[Ross1]

Agree. Unnecessarily complex idea. Just make wheel covers optional and easily removable.

Easily removable means also easily attachable.
What you do is open the back doors and clip them on. At 100 mph. Easy.

 

[CTemp222]

I believe that if Tesla Motors is able to cut their internal cost to below $100 per kWh, they will be able to offer a 60 kWh capacity vehicle for about $25,000.

However that may be a decade in the future.

 

[wdolson]

Easily removable means also easily attachable.
What you do is open the back doors and clip them on. At 100 mph. Easy.

I had a car many years ago with removable skirts over the back wheels. They had to be removed to change a tire, but was otherwise only decorative. The mechanism to remove the skirts got horribly gunked up with road gunk to a point that getting them off was a messy chore. I wouldn't want to remove skirts from the wheels on my car after getting off the highway when it's raining.

 

[Red Sage]

However that may be a decade in the future.

There was some guy, supposedly an 'expert' in battery technology, that published a paper in 2014 that lambasted Elon Musk, the Gigafactory, and the very concept of battery electric vehicles as a viable option for the present or future. His primary point was that electric vehicles were simply far too expensive, and that until the price for the technology could be brought down to below $173 per kWh, it wasn't worth the effort. He estimated it would take about ten years for that to happen.

Which was rather strange... Because the most optimistic estimates for Tesla Motors was that they paid Panasonic around $180 per kWh... And that if Tesla only got the 30% improvement, that Elon said was the minimum expected, from the Gigafactory, that would put their cost at $126 per kWh. Considerably below the threshold that the 'expert' said was necessary to validate battery electric vehicle technology.

Some here are proud to say they don't believe a word that Elon says. I would hope they are not quite so critical of JB Straubel. He has consistently stated that there is an annual improvement on cost for Lithium-ion battery technology at a rate of roughly 7% per year. Well, by my calculations, if the Gigafactory does yield $126 per kWh to start, that means that within four years of its opening, Tesla Motors' internal cost would be as low as $94.25 per kWh.

 

[CTemp222]

There was some guy, supposedly an 'expert' in battery technology, that published a paper in 2014 that lambasted Elon Musk, the Gigafactory, and the very concept of battery electric vehicles as a viable option for the present or future. His primary point was that electric vehicles were simply far too expensive, and that until the price for the technology could be brought down to below $173 per kWh, it wasn't worth the effort. He estimated it would take about ten years for that to happen.

Which was rather strange... Because the most optimistic estimates for Tesla Motors was that they paid Panasonic around $180 per kWh... And that if Tesla only got the 30% improvement, that Elon said was the minimum expected, from the Gigafactory, that would put their cost at $126 per kWh. Considerably below the threshold that the 'expert' said was necessary to validate battery electric vehicle technology.

Some here are proud to say they don't believe a word that Elon says. I would hope they are not quite so critical of JB Straubel. He has consistently stated that there is an annual improvement on cost for Lithium-ion battery technology at a rate of roughly 7% per year. Well, by my calculations, if the Gigafactory does yield $126 per kWh to start, that means that within four years of its opening, Tesla Motors' internal cost would be as low as $94.25 per kWh.

Yes with recent happenings on this forum it seems that some people do have a beef with Elon, but that's interesting, do you know where I could find this "experts" paper? And based on your calculations being below $100 per kWh does seem reasonable within five years or less.

 

[Red Sage]

Yes with recent happenings on this forum it seems that some people do have a beef with Elon, but that's interesting, do you know where I could find this "experts" paper? And based on your calculations being below $100 per kWh does seem reasonable within five years or less.

I'll have to check my archives... I'm pretty sure it was discussed at length on the currently unavailable Tesla Motors Forums. Here are a couple of articles that cover the general economic status of the Gigafactory, and how it would affect pricing for battery packs:

Tesla Motors, Inc.'s Gigafactory May Be More Revolutionary Than We Realize -- The Motley Fool

Tesla's Battery Gigafactory May Achieve Nirvana: $100 Per Kilowatt-Hour, Report Says

 

[ohmman]

Ever since I was a kid, I've imagined a sci-fi scene where thousands of vehicles are traveling at very high speed through a complex interweaving network of roads. The intersections don't have traffic lights, the vehicles just adjust their speeds by tiny amounts to anticipate and avoid the other vehicles crossing and merging into their paths.

I posted this upthread, and happened to run across this video today. Not exactly the same thing, but pretty fun to watch regardless. (It was done using compound video).

[video=vimeo;106226560]https://vimeo.com/106226560[/video]

 

[CTemp222]

I posted this upthread, and happened to run across this video today. Not exactly the same thing, but pretty fun to watch regardless. (It was done using compound video).

[video=vimeo;106226560]https://vimeo.com/106226560[/video]

Now that would be scary!

 

[AudubonB]

I posted this upthread, and happened to run across this video today. Not exactly the same thing, but pretty fun to watch regardless.

A lazy afternoon in Rio de Janeiro or Mexico City.

 

[1208]

Vietnam doesn't need your Hollywood fakery .

 

[Rashomon]

Cameras Replacing sideview mirrors: just a matter of time.

Sources: Tesla Model 3 will have extreme aerodynamic design details | Electrek



Other options, mentioned on Teslas cheapest car could be its weirdest-looking - SlashGear

More aerodynamic wheels (narrower?)
Body panels that fit over the rear wheels (could they be transparent without being a pain to keep clean?)
A single fared-in wiper blade
Changes to the underside to improve airflow/use as heatsink for the cooling system
And persuading the authorities to change the rules regarding wing mirrors - I can't see this one happening in the short-term.

I'm wondering if the base car will be normal-looking (with a Cd similar to the S), but some customers can choose some sort of "Slipstream Pack" or "Range pack" which reduces the Cd below 0.2 but does involve visual changes which others might consider too weird for them.

Similar idea to the bodykit modifications for Roadster 3.0.

Essentially, "Lo-drag" becomes just another option like "Subzero weather", "Rear facing seats" or "Ludicrous". Like the rear facing seats, Lo-drag might not be available after-purchase since it could involve structural changes.

See articles.sae.org/14468
the D.O.T. Can issue regulations that supersede state law. Congress has already delegated that authority.