That's amazing, really. 250 miles for $35K before rebate - with self driving hardware included and ready to be activated later should the buyer choose. Truly amazing value.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
That's amazing, really. 250 miles for $35K before rebate - with self driving hardware included and ready to be activated later should the buyer choose. Truly amazing value.
I decided to re-do all my range calculations to integrate @wk057's usable battery capacity numbers he posted here. That data didn't exist at the time I did my previous calculations here on page 4. So here is the new calculation:
To make things more interesting, I've calculated the Model 3 rated range numbers for all battery sizes from 50 to 85 kWh so people can decide which battery size makes more sense for Tesla to release.
In this table, the green cells are wk057's usable battery capacity numbers as reported by the computer in the car. The pink cells show the percentage of usable capacity. For example, wk057 says usable capacity for the Model S 60 is 58.5 kWh which means 58.5/60= 97.5% usable capacity.
The usable capacity of the two packs that are advertised as 85 and 90 kWh is too low (90.89% and 91.18%). The pack that has 77.5 kWh capacity should have been advertised as 80 kWh, not 85. I guess once they messed this up in 2012, there was no going back. The other pack that had 81.8 kWh usable capacity should have been advertised as 85 kWh but they had already used that number. Anyway, these two packs fell victim to Tesla's overly optimistic advertisement. The assumption is, Tesla has learned their lesson and will do better with the Model 3.
What does this mean for my calculation? It means I have ignored the 90.89% and 91.18% numbers and used only the other 4 numbers shown in pink. The average of those numbers is 97.75%. That's the number I used in my calculations. For example, a 55 kWh Model 3 pack would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity.
Then I looked at rated range per usable kWh. If you look at the numbers, it is clear that the dual motor variants are more efficient than the single motor. I took the average of the 3 numbers shown in orange. The average is 3.42 rated miles per usable kWh for the single motor variant. Then for the dual motor version, I used the average of the 4 numbers shown in blue. The average was 3.53 miles per usable kWh. I used these numbers in calculations.
These two numbers (3.42 and 3.53) are average numbers for the Model S but we know that the Model 3 will be more efficient. Therefore I need to add an efficiency multiplier. The question is, exactly how much more efficient will the Model 3 be than the Model S? To calculate that, I used this equation:
(0.24 * 2.43) / (0.21 * 2.36) = 117.68%
Model S drag coefficient = 0.24 (source)
Model 3 drag coefficient = 0.21 (source)
Model S drag area: 2.43 m^2 (details)
Model 3 drag area: 2.36 m^2 (details)
In other words, I'm estimating that the Model 3 will be 17.7% more efficient than the Model S.
To put it all together, the Model 3 55 single motor would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity. If it was as efficient as the Model S, it would have 3.42*53.8= 183.9 miles rated range but because I'm expecting the Model 3 to be 17.7% more efficient, I'm estimating that it will have 183.9 * 1.177= 216 miles EPA rated range.
For the Model 3 75D, the calculation would look like this: 75 * 0.9775 * 3.53* 1.177= 305 miles rated range.
To make things more interesting, I've calculated the Model 3 rated range numbers for all battery sizes from 50 to 85 kWh so people can decide which battery size makes more sense for Tesla to release.
In this table, the green cells are wk057's usable battery capacity numbers as reported by the computer in the car. The pink cells show the percentage of usable capacity. For example, wk057 says usable capacity for the Model S 60 is 58.5 kWh which means 58.5/60= 97.5% usable capacity.
The usable capacity of the two packs that are advertised as 85 and 90 kWh is too low (90.89% and 91.18%). The pack that has 77.5 kWh capacity should have been advertised as 80 kWh, not 85. I guess once they messed this up in 2012, there was no going back. The other pack that had 81.8 kWh usable capacity should have been advertised as 85 kWh but they had already used that number. Anyway, these two packs fell victim to Tesla's overly optimistic advertisement. The assumption is, Tesla has learned their lesson and will do better with the Model 3.
What does this mean for my calculation? It means I have ignored the 90.89% and 91.18% numbers and used only the other 4 numbers shown in pink. The average of those numbers is 97.75%. That's the number I used in my calculations. For example, a 55 kWh Model 3 pack would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity.
Then I looked at rated range per usable kWh. If you look at the numbers, it is clear that the dual motor variants are more efficient than the single motor. I took the average of the 3 numbers shown in orange. The average is 3.42 rated miles per usable kWh for the single motor variant. Then for the dual motor version, I used the average of the 4 numbers shown in blue. The average was 3.53 miles per usable kWh. I used these numbers in calculations.
These two numbers (3.42 and 3.53) are average numbers for the Model S but we know that the Model 3 will be more efficient. Therefore I need to add an efficiency multiplier. The question is, exactly how much more efficient will the Model 3 be than the Model S? To calculate that, I used this equation:
(0.24 * 2.43) / (0.21 * 2.36) = 117.68%
Model S drag coefficient = 0.24 (source)
Model 3 drag coefficient = 0.21 (source)
Model S drag area: 2.43 m^2 (details)
Model 3 drag area: 2.36 m^2 (details)
In other words, I'm estimating that the Model 3 will be 17.7% more efficient than the Model S.
To put it all together, the Model 3 55 single motor would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity. If it was as efficient as the Model S, it would have 3.42*53.8= 183.9 miles rated range but because I'm expecting the Model 3 to be 17.7% more efficient, I'm estimating that it will have 183.9 * 1.177= 216 miles EPA rated range.
For the Model 3 75D, the calculation would look like this: 75 * 0.9775 * 3.53* 1.177= 305 miles rated range.
Last edited:
JeffK
Well-Known Member
I decided to re-do all my range calculations to integrate @wk057's usable battery capacity numbers he posted here. That data didn't exist at the time I did my previous calculations here on page 4. So here is the new calculation:
To make things more interesting, I've calculated the Model 3 rated range numbers for all battery sizes from 50 to 85 kWh so people can decide which battery size makes more sense for Tesla to release.
In this table, the green cells are wk057's usable battery capacity numbers as reported by the computer in the car. The pink cells show the percentage of usable capacity. For example, wk057 says usable capacity for the Model S 60 is 58.5 kWh which means 58.5/60= 97.5% usable capacity.
The usable capacity of the two packs that are advertised as 85 and 90 kWh is too low (90.89% and 91.18%). The pack that has 77.5 kWh capacity should have been advertised as 80 kWh, not 85. I guess once they messed this up in 2012, there was no going back. The other pack that had 81.8 kWh usable capacity should have been advertised as 85 kWh but they had already used that number. Anyway, these two packs fell victim to Tesla's overly optimistic advertisement. The assumption is, Tesla has learned their lesson and will do better with the Model 3.
What does this mean for my calculation? It means I have ignored the 90.89% and 91.18% numbers and used only the other 4 numbers shown in pink. The average of those numbers is 97.75%. That's the number I used in my calculations. For example, a 55 kWh Model 3 pack would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity.
Then I looked at rated range per usable kWh. If you look at the numbers, it is clear that the dual motor variants are more efficient than the single motor. I took the average of the 3 numbers shown in orange. The average is 3.42 rated miles per usable kWh for the single motor variant. Then for the dual motor version, I used the average of the 4 numbers shown in blue. The average was 3.53 miles per usable kWh. I used these numbers in calculations.
These two numbers (3.42 and 3.53) are average numbers for the Model S but we know that the Model 3 will be more efficient. Therefore I need to add an efficiency multiplier. The question is, exactly how much more efficient will the Model 3 be than the Model S? To calculate that, I used this equation:
(0.24 * 2.43) / (0.21 * 2.36) = 117.68%
Model S drag coefficient = 0.24 (source)
Model 3 drag coefficient = 0.21 (source)
Model S drag area: 2.43 m^2 (details)
Model 3 drag area: 2.36 m^2 (details)
In other words, I'm estimating that the Model 3 will be 17.7% more efficient than the Model S.
To put it all together, the Model 3 55 single motor would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity. If it was as efficient as the Model S, it would have 3.42*53.8= 183.9 miles rated range but because I'm expecting the Model 3 to be 17.7% more efficient, I'm estimating that it will have 183.9 * 1.177= 216 miles EPA rated range.
For the Model 3 75D, the calculation would look like this: 75 * 0.9775 * 3.53* 1.177= 305 miles rated range.
So you are suggesting the Model 3 will be less efficient than the Chevy Bolt, BMW i3, and the Hyundai Ioniq?
range / kWh is 3.5, 3.7, and 4.0 miles respectively
Last edited:
Hi, @JeffK,
I don't know the usable battery capacity of those cars but we can look at the advertised battery capacity and use that for comparison. Here is how the list would look like from the most efficient to the least efficient car:
2017 Hyundai Ioniq Electric, 28 kWh, 124 miles rated range = 4.43 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 Tesla Model 3 75D, 75 kWh, 305 miles rated range = 4.07 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 Chevrolet Bolt: 60 kWh, 238 miles rated range = 3.97 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 Tesla Model 3 55, 55 kWh, 216 miles rated range = 3.93 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 BMW i3: 33kWh, 114 miles rated range = 3.45 rated miles per advertised kWh
The Chevy Bolt is a smaller car. It is much shorter and narrower than the Model 3. Therefore if the Model 3 55 achieves 216 miles rated range like it is shown in my chart above, that's not too bad.
Chevy Bolt dimensions (source)
Length 4,166 mm (164.0 in)
Width 1,765 mm (69.5 in)
Height 1,595 mm (62.8 in)
Model 3 dimensions (source)
Length 4,676 mm (184.1 in)
Width 1,885 mm (74.2 in)
Height 1,435 mm (56.5 in)
By the way, in case people find that interesting, HERE is a web page from the EPA website that compares those three cars to the Model S 75.
I don't know the usable battery capacity of those cars but we can look at the advertised battery capacity and use that for comparison. Here is how the list would look like from the most efficient to the least efficient car:
2017 Hyundai Ioniq Electric, 28 kWh, 124 miles rated range = 4.43 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 Tesla Model 3 75D, 75 kWh, 305 miles rated range = 4.07 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 Chevrolet Bolt: 60 kWh, 238 miles rated range = 3.97 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 Tesla Model 3 55, 55 kWh, 216 miles rated range = 3.93 rated miles per advertised kWh
2017 BMW i3: 33kWh, 114 miles rated range = 3.45 rated miles per advertised kWh
The Chevy Bolt is a smaller car. It is much shorter and narrower than the Model 3. Therefore if the Model 3 55 achieves 216 miles rated range like it is shown in my chart above, that's not too bad.
Chevy Bolt dimensions (source)
Length 4,166 mm (164.0 in)
Width 1,765 mm (69.5 in)
Height 1,595 mm (62.8 in)
Model 3 dimensions (source)
Length 4,676 mm (184.1 in)
Width 1,885 mm (74.2 in)
Height 1,435 mm (56.5 in)
By the way, in case people find that interesting, HERE is a web page from the EPA website that compares those three cars to the Model S 75.
Last edited:
55 and 250ish would be sweet. I would likely skip the battery upgrade and get another option.
Have to play around with the configurator first of course
Have to play around with the configurator first of course
Nice to see that you now land on the same numbers as I have come to from a more technical point of view vs. my more marked oriented point of view. This numbers seems to make sense, and I find that 48s10p configuration especially interesting in terms of the new CCS 800V charging that is mentioned from VAG and others. To bad if that just works on the bigger pack
But on the other hand, more incentive to upgrade your battery and more money to Tesla... I'm afraid your range estimates is a bit optimistic (but not by much), but I hope your right....
I have a P85 2012 Model S, in fact a Founder's Edition, 14th one ever made. Occassionally, after an OTA update, my 90% range increases - it's now at 236 miles, was at 228miles in 2013. Either they are slowly adjusting the calculation algorithm or slowly releasing more capacity in the battery. Or both. Would love tho know what's creating the range increase, or the illusion of it. Might change the 'usable' calcs in the chart.
Sure, you can have all your fancy numbers and reasoned calculations but my SWAG still says 55/70/90. So there's that.I decided to re-do all my range calculations to integrate @wk057's usable battery capacity numbers he posted here. That data didn't exist at the time I did my previous calculations here on page 4. So here is the new calculation:
To make things more interesting, I've calculated the Model 3 rated range numbers for all battery sizes from 50 to 85 kWh so people can decide which battery size makes more sense for Tesla to release.
In this table, the green cells are wk057's usable battery capacity numbers as reported by the computer in the car. The pink cells show the percentage of usable capacity. For example, wk057 says usable capacity for the Model S 60 is 58.5 kWh which means 58.5/60= 97.5% usable capacity.
The usable capacity of the two packs that are advertised as 85 and 90 kWh is too low (90.89% and 91.18%). The pack that has 77.5 kWh capacity should have been advertised as 80 kWh, not 85. I guess once they messed this up in 2012, there was no going back. The other pack that had 81.8 kWh usable capacity should have been advertised as 85 kWh but they had already used that number. Anyway, these two packs fell victim to Tesla's overly optimistic advertisement. The assumption is, Tesla has learned their lesson and will do better with the Model 3.
What does this mean for my calculation? It means I have ignored the 90.89% and 91.18% numbers and used only the other 4 numbers shown in pink. The average of those numbers is 97.75%. That's the number I used in my calculations. For example, a 55 kWh Model 3 pack would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity.
Then I looked at rated range per usable kWh. If you look at the numbers, it is clear that the dual motor variants are more efficient than the single motor. I took the average of the 3 numbers shown in orange. The average is 3.42 rated miles per usable kWh for the single motor variant. Then for the dual motor version, I used the average of the 4 numbers shown in blue. The average was 3.53 miles per usable kWh. I used these numbers in calculations.
These two numbers (3.42 and 3.53) are average numbers for the Model S but we know that the Model 3 will be more efficient. Therefore I need to add an efficiency multiplier. The question is, exactly how much more efficient will the Model 3 be than the Model S? To calculate that, I used this equation:
(0.24 * 2.43) / (0.21 * 2.36) = 117.68%
Model S drag coefficient = 0.24 (source)
Model 3 drag coefficient = 0.21 (source)
Model S drag area: 2.43 m^2 (details)
Model 3 drag area: 2.36 m^2 (details)
In other words, I'm estimating that the Model 3 will be 17.7% more efficient than the Model S.
To put it all together, the Model 3 55 single motor would have 55*97.75%= 53.8 kWh usable capacity. If it was as efficient as the Model S, it would have 3.42*53.8= 183.9 miles rated range but because I'm expecting the Model 3 to be 17.7% more efficient, I'm estimating that it will have 183.9 * 1.177= 216 miles EPA rated range.
For the Model 3 75D, the calculation would look like this: 75 * 0.9775 * 3.53* 1.177= 305 miles rated range.
Very informative post. If you're correct it would seem Tesla may have to go with a larger base battery then 55 kWh since I doubt the Model 3 would have less than the Bolt's range of 238 miles.
However, as long as they have an option for a larger battery they might be willing to have the base rear wheel drive car have less range then the Bolt. Should know in a few months.
@S3XY, if there was a Model 3 90D, it would have 365 miles EPA rated range. Considering that the longest range Model S has 335 mi rated range, do you think it is realistic to expect that Tesla would release a Model 3 with 30 miles more range than the S100D?
In case your argument is that the Model S will have a larger battery before the Model 3 release, that doesn't seem to be the case based on Elon's and JB's statements during the Gigafactory press conference. The Model S/X won't switch to 2170 cells in 2017.
In case your argument is that the Model S will have a larger battery before the Model 3 release, that doesn't seem to be the case based on Elon's and JB's statements during the Gigafactory press conference. The Model S/X won't switch to 2170 cells in 2017.
That's not going to happen because the starting price of the base model is fixed at $35,000. During the reveal event, Elon promised at least 215 miles range for $35K and that's what he is going to deliver.
Also, notice that increasing the 55 to 60 (they need 60 to reach Bolt's range) would negatively affect the larger battery sales. Many buyers would purchase the 60D instead of the 75D. That means they would need to release 60/80 kWh versions instead of 55/75. But that's their plan for 12-18 months later after the release.
Also, 60/80 will require a lot more cells than 55/75. It would negatively effect Model S/X timeline to switch to 2170 cells. That means the illogical obsession to achieve Bolt's range with the lowest range Model 3 would cause a chain of negative effects. Tesla is trying to be profitable. They are behind on service center expansion. If you have listened to conference calls, they talk for minutes about 0.2% improvement in profit margins. They won't do something that completely ruins their profit margins.
I was obviously joking that my guess was better than your reasoned calculations. But to answer your question whether it's realistic that Tesla would release a M3 with more range than a MS, I think it is. I don't think Tesla cares about the M3 surpassing the MS in some aspects, including range. They want to make a more mainstream EV that will beat out ICE's in every respect. And to the average consumer range anxiety is one of the biggest factors against EV's in the battle against ICE's. So if they have to overshadow the MS in order to dispel that worry I think they won't hesitate to do it. Now whether that is physically or technically possible I leave that discussion to the experts.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Remind me what happened to the Model S 40...
@JeffK, how does that relate to this discussion? I'm not following you. The S40 was discontinued because a very small percentage of buyers bought it. After that, Elon came up with the idea that electric cars should have minimum 200 miles range which he followed through with the Model X and soon with the Model 3.
In case you are suggesting that the 55 kWh version would be unpopular, I disagree based on the survey here on the Model 3 delivery estimator page. 25 out of 74 people who selected a battery size between two options, chose the 55 kWh instead of the 75. That's 25/74= 34%. Not bad.
There is another survey here with 5294 participants. People were given 3 battery size options: Base, medium and large. 30.8% chose the base model. Tesla said 215 miles for $35K for the base model and more than 30% of buyers are selecting the base model.
In case you are suggesting that the 55 kWh version would be unpopular, I disagree based on the survey here on the Model 3 delivery estimator page. 25 out of 74 people who selected a battery size between two options, chose the 55 kWh instead of the 75. That's 25/74= 34%. Not bad.
There is another survey here with 5294 participants. People were given 3 battery size options: Base, medium and large. 30.8% chose the base model. Tesla said 215 miles for $35K for the base model and more than 30% of buyers are selecting the base model.
Last edited:
If base Model 3 came with less than 238 miles of range, GM would officially win the race for mass market EV and Tesla would have lost PR race. Expect whatever you wish, it ain't gonna happen.
150$/kWh and 280Wh/mile translates into $42 per mile of EPA range.
Difference between minimum M3 and Bolt range is thus at most 23 miles, at most $966 per car.
Add 13 miles for 251 EPA range, and the difference becomes $1500. A set of semi-nice rims goes for more.
With 200$/kWh and 300Wh/mile, price difference grows to $2160. Loose the power seats and the price stays the same.
I'd take 251 mile M3 with steel rims over 215mile M3 with alloy rims any second in a day. Stop counting the beans and see the future.
150$/kWh and 280Wh/mile translates into $42 per mile of EPA range.
Difference between minimum M3 and Bolt range is thus at most 23 miles, at most $966 per car.
Add 13 miles for 251 EPA range, and the difference becomes $1500. A set of semi-nice rims goes for more.
With 200$/kWh and 300Wh/mile, price difference grows to $2160. Loose the power seats and the price stays the same.
I'd take 251 mile M3 with steel rims over 215mile M3 with alloy rims any second in a day. Stop counting the beans and see the future.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
You might as well create a survey asking what would they rather have in a 35k base model 55 or 60 kWh and see what people pick.
I'm saying Elon promised 215 minimum. Chevy later comes out with the Bolt that bests the 215 by 23 miles. Elon can very well say, hey let's figure out a way to make up $500-600 so we can fit in an additional 5 kWh. Keep in mind, if they are achieving the 25% gross margins like they expect (which are extremely high for the auto industry btw) then they have $8750 to play with.
If they decided to spend even $750 to increase the battery capacity, they still be making a 22.8% gross margin on the base model. This is assuming nobody purchases an optional upgrade.
If Elon wants a greater range, then Elon will get a greater range. It's not going to break the bank or come anywhere close.
Tesla is already selling cars with less range than the Bolt. The Model S 60 has 210 miles rated range, 28 miles less than the Bolt yet I have never seen anybody talk about that. However, people do talk about the S100D's 335 miles range. Similarly, when the Model 3 is released, the media is going to talk about the Model 3 75D's range which will be more than 300 miles. If people want more range, they can pay $6,000 more and purchase the larger battery. However, more than 30% of buyers are happy with 215 miles range. The Bolt is a low volume car. It is not a threat to the Model 3.
Last edited:
Similar threads
