0.2 is just ~15% less than a Model S. Just losing the mirror and properly designed wheels will probably get half of that, forget about more advanced aerodynamic modeling. There are large losses in the small details that no one would notice change. Suspension parts? Less cooling?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
0.2 is just ~15% less than a Model S. Just losing the mirror and properly designed wheels will probably get half of that, forget about more advanced aerodynamic modeling. There are large losses in the small details that no one would notice change. Suspension parts? Less cooling?
Unless they can get the laws changed, they won't be losing the mirrors. Every US state has their own mirror laws and the laws in every state will have to be changed before it will be practical to eliminate mirrors.
A summation of the laws in the US:
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Mirror_Laws_by_State_(U.S.)
I'm sure most countries where Tesla wants to sell cars have similar laws.
The Model X prototype had cameras in place of the outside mirrors, but Tesla was unsuccessful in getting the laws changed.
Rashomon
Member
In general, federal regulations in automotive supercede state laws. All that would be required is for the DOT to define a camera/display system as a mirror. Similarly, UN-ECE rules as set by the EU are the basis for vehicle regulation in much of the rest of the world. The VW group has already gotten an exemption for the XL1 to use cameras in place of mirrors, and both the recent Porsche and Audi prototypes were shown with cameras. These are strong signs that a regulatory change is coming for Europe. This still doesn't ensure the rules will change in time for the model 3, but I bet both design options are being included at this point.
ratsbew
Active Member
Federal law trumps state law, but most of the rules on the federal level aren't laws, they are rules established by the DOT. State laws are crafted based on the rules, but unless state laws are in conflict with one another or dramatically deviate from the rules, the feds tend to stay out of state law. Every state law I looked at specified that cars needed mirrors to see at least 200 feet behind the car, but the wording is different in each state. What was consistent was the term "mirror" was used in all of them. I suppose Congress could pass a law to define a camera as a mirror for rear view purposes, but the current Congress is not very effective.
There are a number of articles out there on how it's probably going to be a while before the laws change and rear view cameras would be allowed in place of mirrors. There are a number of states out there that don't like Tesla and until the big 3 automakers start pushing for it, the states aren't going to lift a finger if it would help Tesla. The Big 3 don't want to advocate for anything that would help Tesla either, even if it would help them too.
One of the design considerations Tesla has is whether to use auto presenting door handles as an option or use more traditional door handles that are very aerodynamic.
I highly doubt the auto presenting door handles will be on the $35k entry model. So I wonder what the door handles will look like?
I highly doubt the auto presenting door handles will be on the $35k entry model. So I wonder what the door handles will look like?
Hot spot door handles like the Model X without the auto open door mechanism.
Last edited:
I think Colsla's idea might have been that the door handles will work like the front doors on the X, but the ability for the car to detect your presence and open the door for you, instead of responding to a press on the handle, would be in a tech package. At least, I think that's likely, though it does depend on how people react to auto-opening front doors on the X. There wouldn't be any hardware difference between auto-opening and not, as the ultrasonic sensors and the door motors would likely already be there, so I don't know if Tesla would make it standard to help say "wow, look how much more advanced our car is than other $35k cars" or if they would make it an upgrade so they can have higher margins.
Well, it is
All non-crazy ideas are used to get to ~0.24.
Then you can only use the crazy ones to get even lower.
The car will be smooth half-egg-shaped sooner or later.
LargeHamCollider
Battery cells != scalable
Apparently the Bolt is at .312, so one can have both a high .cd and a weirdmobile!
The Bolt isn't a weirdmobile. Looks like most other hatchbacks.
If the Ioniq has 0.24, that's pretty good. I'm sure the 0.2 for the Model 3 is with side view cameras, flush door handles and similar improvements that the Ioniq doesn't have, so maybe the shape won't suffer too much.
Am I the only one who doesn't give two hoots about the Cd, so long as the range is good? (Yes, I know one is affected by the other)
I can't wait for the day that battery tech is so cheap, that we don't have to have every car look alike "Just because they're aerodynamic".
Certain cars just look nice, but they might not be as slippery.
Really, people are so worried about side view mirrors or not having wheel covers, but in reality it takes what, maybe 2-5 miles off your range? Give me a bigger battery and call it even. Wheel covers are ugly, and they always will be. Hopefully I'll be dead before those catch on.
I can't wait for the day that battery tech is so cheap, that we don't have to have every car look alike "Just because they're aerodynamic".
Certain cars just look nice, but they might not be as slippery.
Really, people are so worried about side view mirrors or not having wheel covers, but in reality it takes what, maybe 2-5 miles off your range? Give me a bigger battery and call it even. Wheel covers are ugly, and they always will be. Hopefully I'll be dead before those catch on.
