Model 3 at $40K?

[ckessel]

There is no reason at all to expect a battery replacement to be required. The NCA chemistry is rated beyond 2000 cycles, 1000 cycles on a 200 mile pack is 200,000 miles.

Far to many unknowns to really say, but at this point I'm not seeing any reason to see battery replacement as likely to be any different than major ICE work at roughly the same time frame. For example, an ICE engine eventually needs to be rebuilt (or has fairly catastrophic repairs where you might as well rebuild it).

Either way, I'm not going to worry about it for at least a decade . Elon may have 3 gigafactories up by then and who knows how cheap and commoditized automotive batteries will become.

 

[physicsfita]

Tried this on a windows 7 machine and it seems to work OK. ≡
How do I do this on a Mac ?

Bring up the character viewer, go to "math symbols", scroll about 1/3 of the way down the palette -- the Unicode name is "identical to". After that, you can find easier in "recently used" or you can add it to your favorites. Watch out -- a couple of characters to the right in the palette is "strictly equal to" which looks very similar, but isn't quite the same. Here's a little more info: OS X Mavericks: Enter special characters and symbols

Or, you can enable the Unicode Hex Input keyboard, then hold down the "option" key while typing 2261. That's probably easier, since you can type regular letters that don't need the option key held down, so it works like you would expect from your PC.

 

[KJD]

Bring up the character viewer, go to "math symbols", scroll about 1/3 of the way down the palette -- the Unicode name is "identical to". After that, you can find easier in "recently used" or you can add it to your favorites. Watch out -- a couple of characters to the right in the palette is "strictly equal to" which looks very similar, but isn't quite the same. Here's a little more info: OS X Mavericks: Enter special characters and symbols

Or, you can enable the Unicode Hex Input keyboard, then hold down the "option" key while typing 2261. That's probably easier, since you can type regular letters that don't need the option key held down, so it works like you would expect from your PC.

Thanks for the tip. ≡
Now what do you think the chances are we will see a model ≡ in 2017 ?

 

[physicsfita]

Thanks for the tip. ≡
Now what do you think the chances are we will see a model ≡ in 2017 ?

I'm thinking maybe 50/50 -- on the one hand, Tesla seems to have a track record of stated timelines being more aspirational than factual. On the other hand, in the last couple of months, I've talked with two people who have much better sources in the company than the average bear, and they say they are hearing that everything is on track for 2017. I hope they're right!

 

[Red Sage]

Three, Five, Oh, Oh, Oh...

Hmmm... Please remember that Tesla Motors does not use 'independent franchised dealerships'. There is a certain effect that has on the price scale for the electric or hybrid vehicles other auto makers offer at the $30,000 to $35,000 range. No matter what NADA says, there is an additional cost that is applied for having these middlemen between manufacturers and consumers.

I believe that the base version of the Tesla Model ☰ will have a price of $34,990 from the outset. I believe that it will include a 60 kWh battery pack, and a 300 HP motor for that amount. I believe that it will be appointed about as well as a Toyota Camry LE at that base trim level. I believe that Tesla Motors will achieve a 25% profit margin on that base model from the very outset of production.

Most auto makers claim to get an average of 6% profit margin across their entire fleet of cars. I don't believe them. I'm pretty sure they are lying. They want very much to completely hide what their actual costs are to manufacture cars, as well as what the real price is that dealers pay to acquire them. But assuming they are correct, that would mean...

34,990 / 1.06 = 33009.433962264

See? Tesla Motors could achieve a 6% gross profit margin on a $34,990 car even if it cost them $33,009 to build. They could still achieve an approximate 25% profit margin on every car that sold for $41,262 or more. I expect the Tesla Model ☰ 85 would debut at $42,990... right on target.

But as I said, I think they will have a 25% profit margin from the very beginning, on the base version...

34,990 / 1.25 = 27992

Here you see that at $34,990 as the base price, Tesla Motors has a 25% gross profit margin even if the car costs as much as $27,992 to build. Isn't it nice to not have 'independent franchised dealerships'...?

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Far to many unknowns to really say, but at this point I'm not seeing any reason to see battery replacement as likely to be any different than major ICE work at roughly the same time frame. For example, an ICE engine eventually needs to be rebuilt (or has fairly catastrophic repairs where you might as well rebuild it).

Either way, I'm not going to worry about it for at least a decade . Elon may have 3 gigafactories up by then and who knows how cheap and commoditized automotive batteries will become.

Most of the testing I've seen suggests that capacity loss in NCA cells is mostly a function of age/average temperature assuming the soc is kept within a fairly safe range.

 

[EVNow]

I would love to get a 150 range EV, that's plenty. We seem to be stuck between the LEAF and now a more expensive Model 3. No other choices for several more years.....

Maybe they quoted a higher price because they know Nissan is supposed to come out with a LEAF with 135 range for around $33,000 in about a year or two and think they can get more money for their car now...I don't know....

In 2016 we are going to get a 150 mile Leaf, a 200 mile Infiniti and apparently a "200" mile GM. I expect ...

150 mile Leaf : $35k
"200" mile GM : ??
200 mile Infiniti : $40k
200 mile Model 3 : $40k

BTW, Infiniti is even expected to come before Leaf - it will be here before Apr '16. Leaf will be sometime after that. Timing is according to Palmer.

 

[ENZA]

i think that'd be wishful thinking.
if anything it'd likely be be by 2018-2019'ish for the price to be around 40k for a base model on an M≡

 

[Red Sage]

Back to the nature at hand...

The Model 3 will go on sale in 2017 for about $40,000, said Tesla spokesman Simon Sproule, although the price could change as the vehicle gets closer to market. -- Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times

I call [BOLSHEVIK]. Notice this article doesn't use quotation marks for an actual statement from the 'Tesla spokesman'...? This is another paraphrased statement by a writer who has made an assumption because he doesn't believe what he was actually told. It's back to the same crap that happened when a writer decided on his own that the Generation III vehicle would have a 48 kWh battery, and attributed it as if it were a quote of Elon Musk, when in fact he never specified a battery capacity. The writer simply chose the word 'about' to do CYA duty as a qualifier for his own statement, and people bought it because technically, $35,000 is 'about $40,000'.

 

[ecarfan]

Agreed. No one at Tesla but Elon is going to talk about the possible price of a new model that won't go into production for over two years!

Yahoo Finance articles are some of the worst. Every day Yahoo publishes one paragraph articles on Tesla based on the tiniest scraps of information, often stuff they clearly mine from these forums, just to get clicks. The articles are practically content free and often reiterate bits of info from other already published articles.

Tesla is the hot topic these days.

 

[Trev Page]

Actually I think I recall hearing Elon in an interview sometime this year saying the price would be $35K before rebates. Unfortunately I cannot recall which of the many Elon interviews I have watched/listened to was the one where he made that statement.

Of course the oft mentioned $35K price is the base/bare minimum price, no options.

Yes, Elon had said this on several occasions. The price quoted of $35k is before any rebates as Tesla anticipates the rabates will be gone by the time the arrives on the market. They don't want to be held accountable for that so pricing will be done more like other cars on the market. Model S and X are artificially priced lower because of the rebates being induced in the price. I find it a bit disingenuous but I'm sure they do it like that to help with sales at the present time.

- - - Updated - - -

Back to the nature at hand...

I call [BOLSHEVIK]. Notice this article doesn't use quotation marks for an actual statement from the 'Tesla spokesman'...? This is another paraphrased statement by a writer who has made an assumption because he doesn't believe what he was actually told. It's back to the same crap that happened when a writer decided on his own that the Generation III vehicle would have a 48 kWh battery, and attributed it as if it were a quote of Elon Musk, when in fact he never specified a battery capacity. The writer simply chose the word 'about' to do CYA duty as a qualifier for his own statement, and people bought it because technically, $35,000 is 'about $40,000'.

The only thing Elon has publicly stated about Model III is the price target, range and physical size. A few other things were mentioned last year in Europe during the Model S rollout but those are subject to change. Everything else is pure speculation on the part of journalists and enthusiasts.

Everyone needs to go and watch this video of Elon to see where he stands on Model III
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...irst-prototype?p=474028&viewfull=1#post474028

 

[ElSupreme]

150 mile Leaf : $35k

Some of the numbers being thrown around this thread are quite low.

The current LEAF SV (with Quick Charge) is ~$35k. How would they be able to double the battery capacity and still offer at the same cost. A similarly equipped Versa Note SV costs $20k which means the electric premium is ~$15k. I bet that Nissan can't hit sub $40k with their LEAF 150 until a second generation. My bet is ~$42k for their lowest optioned 150 when it first hits the streets.


The Base Model 3 is going to be about as nice inside as the current Focus, or Subaru Outback. That is it will be cheap, but nice. But with a massive touchscreen rather than a panel full of buttons. It is going to have ~40-50kWh of battery capacity.


It is going to go 0-60 in the mid/high 6 second range (quick but not sports car territory). And probably get 200 miles EPA on a full range charge. It is going to be quite basic on the inside, although will probably contain more than 1.5 usable cup holder slots. And it is going to cost ~$37. And the Model 3, just like the Model S is going to be considerably more massive than other vehicles about the same size. My guess is ~1800kg.

Costs for batteries will decrease, but not drastically. They aren't building an new type of battery. They aren't building a new method of making batteries. They are purely using economies of scale to drop the price of the battery cells.

 

[Model3]

I am ready to reserve mine

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Some of the numbers being thrown around this thread are quite low.

The current LEAF SV (with Quick Charge) is ~$35k. How would they be able to double the battery capacity and still offer at the same cost. A similarly equipped Versa Note SV costs $20k which means the electric premium is ~$15k. I bet that Nissan can't hit sub $40k with their LEAF 150 until a second generation. My bet is ~$42k for their lowest optioned 150 when it first hits the streets.

It may be both at the same time. Odds are Nissan/their dealers have normal (highish) mark-ups on the Leaf, and can knock at least a few grand off of the "invoice" price to compete if need be, like they (And Toyota with the PIP) are doing now. On the design side, they could increase battery capacity by ~50+%, and make up the rest via reductions to CdA, Crr, and increases in regen/motor efficiency. Regardless of what happens, competition in the ~100-200 mile sub-$40k EV market is good in my book

 

[ericspecullaas]

I am ready to reserve mine

me too but i do have a question what if they do another name change?

 

[tander]

I'm thinking maybe 50/50 -- on the one hand, Tesla seems to have a track record of stated timelines being more aspirational than factual. On the other hand, in the last couple of months, I've talked with two people who have much better sources in the company than the average bear, and they say they are hearing that everything is on track for 2017. I hope they're right!

It's not really a question of whether the car will be ready by then, the question is when will the gigafactory be ready for the car?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Some of the numbers being thrown around this thread are quite low.

The current LEAF SV (with Quick Charge) is ~$35k. How would they be able to double the battery capacity and still offer at the same cost. A similarly equipped Versa Note SV costs $20k which means the electric premium is ~$15k. I bet that Nissan can't hit sub $40k with their LEAF 150 until a second generation. My bet is ~$42k for their lowest optioned 150 when it first hits the streets.

The Base Model 3 is going to be about as nice inside as the current Focus, or Subaru Outback. That is it will be cheap, but nice. But with a massive touchscreen rather than a panel full of buttons. It is going to have ~40-50kWh of battery capacity.

It is going to go 0-60 in the mid/high 6 second range (quick but not sports car territory). And probably get 200 miles EPA on a full range charge. It is going to be quite basic on the inside, although will probably contain more than 1.5 usable cup holder slots. And it is going to cost ~$37. And the Model 3, just like the Model S is going to be considerably more massive than other vehicles about the same size. My guess is ~1800kg.

Costs for batteries will decrease, but not drastically. They aren't building an new type of battery. They aren't building a new method of making batteries. They are purely using economies of scale to drop the price of the battery cells.

Well, they're using logistical improvements and economies of scale.

I'll say it again: Model 3 is not going to have a much smaller battery.
- At Gigafactory prices reducing battery capacity by 10kWh saves you less than $2k (at Tesla would like it to save as little as $1k)
- Lower capacity means higher C-rate.
- Lower capacity means shorter range.
- Lower capacity means slower charging.
- Lower capacity means a greater percentage reduction in range in adverse conditions.

Yes, a lighter, smaller car will be more efficient, but besides getting pricing down to a point that allows volume sales, Tesla other enormous Gen 3 challenge is to build a Supercharger network that can handle high volume. Why cut less than $2k off the price if it just adds sales of cars that make the Supercharger problem harder to solve?

To me, it's much better to sacrifice performance than range and charging speed. It'll will save $1k per 10kW of power in the near future, according to JB Straubel. Given the S60 has 5.9s 0-60, and the Model 3 will be 20% smaller, they could probably knock the power down to 150kW on the base model and still hit just under 7s. Given that JB Straubel's stated price was a projection, the total savings from the current S60 pricing would likely be comfortably over $10k just from that power reduction.

 

[Red Sage]

To me, it's much better to sacrifice performance than range and charging speed. It'll will save $1k per 10kW of power in the near future, according to JB Straubel. Given the S60 has 5.9s 0-60, and the Model 3 will be 20% smaller, they could probably knock the power down to 150kW on the base model and still hit just under 7s. Given that JB Straubel's stated price was a projection, the total savings from the current S60 pricing would likely be comfortably over $10k just from that power reduction.

Here the problem is... Lowering the power of the motor will not increase range. You get range with battery capacity. A greater throughput inverter can be used to deliver more power to the motor when you have a higher battery capacity. Effectively, you are allowed a more powerful motor 'for free' simply by having a higher battery capacity.

The economy of range is controlled by your right foot. Stomp on it all the time, and your range will drop. Drive smoothly and your range will be maximized.

It is ICE minded thinking that leads one to believe that lower performance yields greater range. That is not true with electric cars. Unfortunately the EPA still rates MPGe as if it is... That's why the only two electric vehicles that they say have a range in excess of 200 miles each are rated with a lower MPGe than multiple electric vehicles that have less than 90 total miles of range.

You can gain range by limiting the top speed, because drag increases in a cubic manner the higher speed you attain. But I doubt there will ever be a Tesla branded product with an 85 MPH or lower governor for public consumption. That limitation has so far only been for press corps vehicles.

 

[Matias]

ItsNotAboutTheMoney ​didn't write, that reducing power increases range. He ment, that it decreases price. Power electronics is expensive.

 

[Red Sage]

I was pointing out that reducing power will not be necessary, because the goal is to get range. The range will be achieved through battery technology. The reduction of price in batteries will be achieved through economies of scale and the Gigafactory production. The Tesla Model ☰ will not be either slow as a Chevrolet Spark EV, or slower than a BMW 320i. Tesla's advantage over other auto manufacturers is their commitment to performance for electric cars. There is no reason to give up that advantage. Please note that a portion of the 'cost' that others must endure is the presence of a middleman, in the form of 'independent franchised dealerships' that increase the final price of electric vehicles, and don't want to sell them anyway. Tesla does not have that problem.