-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
You are not following the topic closely. It wasn't forum members who came up with the argument that Tesla would deliver highly optioned versions first. It was Elon himself who said that. Click HERE to listen. Elon said that on 10th Feb 2016.
Obviously, something has changed between then and now. We don't know what. My guess is, they found out that the gearboxes they ordered from a supplier didn't pass the long-term durability tests, so they contracted a new supplier. Therefore those parts will be delayed. It's not a deliberate choice. Many existing Tesla owners won't get their D or P versions before some non-owners get their single motor versions first. As a result, many Tesla owners or non-owners who waited in line on day one will miss the deadline for full tax credits. This was not the plan at all. The full tax credits will end either on Mar 31, 2018 or Jun 30, 2018. There is no third option. Either way, it will be too late for some D and P buyers.
Obviously, something has changed between then and now. We don't know what. My guess is, they found out that the gearboxes they ordered from a supplier didn't pass the long-term durability tests, so they contracted a new supplier. Therefore those parts will be delayed. It's not a deliberate choice. Many existing Tesla owners won't get their D or P versions before some non-owners get their single motor versions first. As a result, many Tesla owners or non-owners who waited in line on day one will miss the deadline for full tax credits. This was not the plan at all. The full tax credits will end either on Mar 31, 2018 or Jun 30, 2018. There is no third option. Either way, it will be too late for some D and P buyers.
Last edited:
Oh but we do know what changed... In feb 2016 tesla did not have 400k orders and planned 500k productin for 2020.
Then the reveal came and change of plans. They will start with as simple cofiguration possible for as high a price possible i.e. Bigger battery with rwd.
Then the reveal came and change of plans. They will start with as simple cofiguration possible for as high a price possible i.e. Bigger battery with rwd.
BluestarE3
Active Member
And upgraded materials for the interior, upgraded seats, premium sound, fancy wheels, expensive paint options, etc. "Highly optioned" cars without the complexity of having to build multiple models at the outset.
Yes, "Highly optioned" being options with highest margin, that are easy to install and widely available.
AP2 being the first on the list of "mandatory options" - it costs them nothing to include it, and brings in a good amount per car.
There were some hints last year that M3 at reveal had 70kWh battery, it was the bigger one.
The pack is made of 8 modules, it makes sense that the smaller pack uses just 6 of those same modules (ease of production, all modules are the same).
One module was 8,75 kWh and 6 modules were 52 kWh. They said at least 215 miles for the base => 4,13 miles / kWh
8 modules were 70 kWh with around 280 miles of range (a bit higher weight)
Than the Bolt was revealed, and later also its 238 EPA miles. I'm sure tesla its efficiency long before it was revealed to the public.
Tesla went back to the drawing board how can they squeeze more cells into same battery enclosure.
Did some optimizations and carried them over to Model S and X also. P100D came to be.
Same tricks transformed that 70 kWh Model 3 battery into 75 kWh battery. And 52 kWh base battery into 56 kWh battery.
And 215 base range into 231 base range. Still not quite there yet, some more tricks are needed for additional 5% to come above 240.
Special tires maybe (remember Hankook?)
All this results in around 310 miles of range for 75 kWh Model 3.
We also know model 3 inverter is good for +300kW. This jives with 75kWh battery, good old 4C max discharge.
Base model with only 6 modules at 300V will only get 220 kW at same 4C discharge.
GM Bolt has 150kW and 6.5s 0-60 time. M3 will be slightly heavier but will have more than a third higher max power (at same motor rpm that means a third more torque and acceleration). I predict 5,7s 0-60 for base M356. M375 will have another third more power and torque, but about 10% higher weight, this by itself would result in some 4,7 s 0-60 time. But having same max torque capabilites and higher voltage, this more power would only show above some speed - say 40mph. From 0 to 40 they would be the same, only above 40mph M375 will pull ahead, shaving some tenths from 0-60 time, say half a second.
Summary :
- base configuration: 56 kWh (6 battery modules in series, 300V max, 220 kW), 240 EPA miles, 5.7s0-60
- upgraded battery: 75 kWh (8 modules, 400V, 300 kW), 310 EPA miles, 5.2s 0-60
AP2 being the first on the list of "mandatory options" - it costs them nothing to include it, and brings in a good amount per car.
There were some hints last year that M3 at reveal had 70kWh battery, it was the bigger one.
The pack is made of 8 modules, it makes sense that the smaller pack uses just 6 of those same modules (ease of production, all modules are the same).
One module was 8,75 kWh and 6 modules were 52 kWh. They said at least 215 miles for the base => 4,13 miles / kWh
8 modules were 70 kWh with around 280 miles of range (a bit higher weight)
Than the Bolt was revealed, and later also its 238 EPA miles. I'm sure tesla its efficiency long before it was revealed to the public.
Tesla went back to the drawing board how can they squeeze more cells into same battery enclosure.
Did some optimizations and carried them over to Model S and X also. P100D came to be.
Same tricks transformed that 70 kWh Model 3 battery into 75 kWh battery. And 52 kWh base battery into 56 kWh battery.
And 215 base range into 231 base range. Still not quite there yet, some more tricks are needed for additional 5% to come above 240.
Special tires maybe (remember Hankook?)
All this results in around 310 miles of range for 75 kWh Model 3.
We also know model 3 inverter is good for +300kW. This jives with 75kWh battery, good old 4C max discharge.
Base model with only 6 modules at 300V will only get 220 kW at same 4C discharge.
GM Bolt has 150kW and 6.5s 0-60 time. M3 will be slightly heavier but will have more than a third higher max power (at same motor rpm that means a third more torque and acceleration). I predict 5,7s 0-60 for base M356. M375 will have another third more power and torque, but about 10% higher weight, this by itself would result in some 4,7 s 0-60 time. But having same max torque capabilites and higher voltage, this more power would only show above some speed - say 40mph. From 0 to 40 they would be the same, only above 40mph M375 will pull ahead, shaving some tenths from 0-60 time, say half a second.
Summary :
- base configuration: 56 kWh (6 battery modules in series, 300V max, 220 kW), 240 EPA miles, 5.7s0-60
- upgraded battery: 75 kWh (8 modules, 400V, 300 kW), 310 EPA miles, 5.2s 0-60
igotzzoom
Active Member
A difference in 0-60 from 5.7 to 4.7 wouldn't be enough to induce me to wait essentially another year for a dual-motor/performance model. 4 seconds flat, maybe.
I don't at all believe they redesigned the battery packs for more cells. My thinking has been that the prototypes were made with prototype 21-70s that used the current 90/100 kWh pack chemistry.
I expect that each module has 480 cells, which means 6 modules results in 2880 cells and 8 modules results in 3840 cells.
With the current 18650-cell chemistry, 50% more active material in the 21-70s and 3840 cells, that means the 8 module prototype packs should have been (102.4 kWh / 8256) x 1,5 x 3840 = 71.4 kWh. With a 5-10% improvement in chemistry, the 8 module production pack should be 75.0-78.5 kWh. (There should be around 3 kWh buffer, so the available capacity would then be 73.0-75.5 kWh.)
The capacity for the 2880 cell pack would be 56.3-58.9 kWh, with 53.3-55.9 kWh available.
I also suspect dropping the voltage all the way down to 300V would be problematic. I think Tesla may have gone for a 48s/10p configuration for the modules. With 2 modules in series and 3 or 4 modules in parallell, you either get a 6 module 96s30p configuration or a 96s40p configuration. The voltage for both packs is thus 400V, but the max current for the smaller pack is reduced by 25%.
I think the most realistic alternative is that Tesla would remove cells from each module, so that the 55 kWh pack would have 8 modules, but only 360 cells per module.
Last edited:
Chopr147
Active Member
The Model S 60D in snow is awesome! Handles really well. On the 3 I want that as well. In LaLa land RWD is plenty good enough.
Nothing has really changed. The first Model 3 delivered will be relatively high-optioned cars. That's relative to available options. He'd already said that the initial Model 3s wouldn't have all features because they would prioritize the release over features.
D requires 2 times the motors of the RWD, more software and a different front configuration to the RWD. P will be PD and could require two different motors. Both of those involve extra work and the AWD software will need more testing than the RWD motor control.
So, if they released the PD first, or even the D first the release would be delayed.
But if you want a Model 3 sooner rather than later, select a 75 and check all the boxes.
Yes, because that's the only thing they can produce until they get the parts for the AWD. Will be 2WD orders w/ 75KW packs fulfilled first. All Tesla employees that want AWD will also be skipped.
The highly optioned cars probably means the larger battery size, leather seats, upgraded sound, autopilot activated, that sort ot thing. Nothing too mechanical that would impact production.
SureValla
Member
This should mean my order advancing to 1st quarter 2018, guaranteeing the fed tax credit. Goods news for some.
I suspect that by the time Model 3s become available on the other side of the continent, the AWD and Performance options will be available too, or very soon thereafter. It's not going to be much of an issue for any except the folks in California.
BluestarE3
Active Member
Also keep in mind that originally the July "impossible" date was just a checkpoint to verify the state of readiness for parts suppliers. Actual production of the Model 3 wasn't to start until "late 2017" (beginning with Tesla employees, then ramping up for the US West Coast and moving eastward, and finally other locales). If a supplier wasn't ready by July, this buffer gives Tesla time to find an alternate supplier or take production of that part in-house. Apparently this originally announced production start date and roll-out sequence was acceptable to everyone who subsequently placed a reservation?
Now, they announced that the RWD model will start production in July. So, yes, good news for those who want standard RWD. For AWD and Performance buyers, it doesn't seem much has changed, if any... especially for non-employees outside the US West Coast. So, rather than the tweets being announcements of delays for the AWD/Performance models, they're more of a clarification that the recently announced improvement to production start date only applies to the standard RWD model.
Now, they announced that the RWD model will start production in July. So, yes, good news for those who want standard RWD. For AWD and Performance buyers, it doesn't seem much has changed, if any... especially for non-employees outside the US West Coast. So, rather than the tweets being announcements of delays for the AWD/Performance models, they're more of a clarification that the recently announced improvement to production start date only applies to the standard RWD model.
Tesla would greatly benefit from being able to produce nearly the same car for an entire shift, changing configuration only between shifts. Its so much easier for workers to only need briefing on what they'll do for the entire shift.
The economics change quite a bit from 500 cars/wk to 5000 cars/wk.
Assembly line throughput might be far more important in Tesla gross margins than just doing the highly optioned cars first.
There's also the huge if on what items they predict will be the pacing elements. If producing motors are the bottleneck, making only RWD models allows twice as many cars to be made, until motor production can be scaled high enough.
There are hundreds of variables we're not privy to.
While I understand a lot of you are focused on your private interests, my preference is Tesla makes as much cash as possible and stop needing any stock offers or bonus sales asap. Become profitable while growing like crazy.
Most Tesla customers don't post here and those that post are not proportional to the overall mix of interests.
I predict the average M3 car will be less optioned than MS/MX orders are, not mostly bare bone cars, but on average more like RWD+small battery+L5 autonomy.
After avoiding going broke, the other goal that's just as important is to produce and deliver as many cars as possible. Only by eating up the US$ 35-60k car market competitors will stop making compliance EVs and be forced to become 100% serious about going full electric as their primary market.
Remember most car companies make very little margin on sub US$ 30k cars. By eating the middle-high end market, Tesla will chew up competitor margins, ending the compliance game.
Besides 0-100km/h in 5 seconds in awesome performance in my view.
Finally, I would much rather have Tesla start production in July with restriction on what they'll be making at first than delay production another 3-6 months. So hard decisions must be made. Depending on parts availability, the mix of cars being produced first might change. If out of a sudden a part every car need becomes the pacing element, those AWDs might come back to the front of the line.
The economics change quite a bit from 500 cars/wk to 5000 cars/wk.
Assembly line throughput might be far more important in Tesla gross margins than just doing the highly optioned cars first.
There's also the huge if on what items they predict will be the pacing elements. If producing motors are the bottleneck, making only RWD models allows twice as many cars to be made, until motor production can be scaled high enough.
There are hundreds of variables we're not privy to.
While I understand a lot of you are focused on your private interests, my preference is Tesla makes as much cash as possible and stop needing any stock offers or bonus sales asap. Become profitable while growing like crazy.
Most Tesla customers don't post here and those that post are not proportional to the overall mix of interests.
I predict the average M3 car will be less optioned than MS/MX orders are, not mostly bare bone cars, but on average more like RWD+small battery+L5 autonomy.
After avoiding going broke, the other goal that's just as important is to produce and deliver as many cars as possible. Only by eating up the US$ 35-60k car market competitors will stop making compliance EVs and be forced to become 100% serious about going full electric as their primary market.
Remember most car companies make very little margin on sub US$ 30k cars. By eating the middle-high end market, Tesla will chew up competitor margins, ending the compliance game.
Besides 0-100km/h in 5 seconds in awesome performance in my view.
Finally, I would much rather have Tesla start production in July with restriction on what they'll be making at first than delay production another 3-6 months. So hard decisions must be made. Depending on parts availability, the mix of cars being produced first might change. If out of a sudden a part every car need becomes the pacing element, those AWDs might come back to the front of the line.
pkalhan
Member
I agree with this also. I reserved my Model 3 on April 2nd and I live in PA. Some of the delivery projections that people have put together had my delivery date around Sept 2018. I do not think the news from Elon will change my date all too much though. I will still plan on getting AWD. If I was going to be waiting till Sept 2018 (possibly) to get my Model 3, I can wait a little more. All I want really is the design studio up an running so we can see what options will be available and what their costs will be. That will hold me over for a good while.
