JeffK
Well-Known Member
This is more about Elon's drive for the Model 3 to be the best car in that price range. He said it at launch.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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.
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. ...
Good luck explaining that to mass media.For one thing, "officially win the race for mass market EV" is meaningless
I think your estimates are a bit high. I expect a ~20% drop in consumption from the original 60 kWh Model S. (~17% drop in aero, ~17% drop in weight and ~5% improved motor/inverter efficiency.) Your figures state 3.59 miles per kWh, or 279 Wh/mile. A 20% reduction from that is 223 Wh/mile.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.
I'm also leaning towards 55 and 75 kWh packs now. This is based on the 100 kWh pack architecture, the powerwall specs, and various data. My post on the matter: 2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion
TL;DR: I now expect two packs for the Model 3, one with roughly 57.6 kWh (marketed as "55" kWh) and 2880 cells in a 96s30p configuration, and one with roughly 76.8 kWh (marketed at "75" kWh) and 3840 cells in a 96s40p configuration. Ranges could be around ~250 miles and ~330 miles.
I agree with Troy, the Bolt has one pack size. No optional pack. Tesla offers multiple pack sizes. Just knowing there is more than one pack size will satisfy both Elon and the market. You don't have to make the low pack size have more range than the bolt.
Hi Guys,
Has anyone tried to calculate the power needed to move the car at steady state load IE wind resistance, rolling resistance, frontal area, velocity etc ?
I think you will come a lot closer to reality.
Cheers,
Eric B.
No, they don't have to, sure they probably want to but I don't see that as being their primary goal. And even if the Bolt has greater range all Tesla has to do is compare their few hundred thousand reservation to the 30 thousand or Bolts.Tesla pretty much has to make the base 3 range longer than the Bolt's. Otherwise Chevy/GM beat Tesla at Tesla's own game; they already brought it to market a year before the 3.
And realistically, if Tesla can't make their base 3 with a longer range than the Bolt at approximately the same price (slightly lower MSRP, actually), then Tesla's Gigafactory 1 is an abject failure. If it can't reduce the cost of the 3's batteries to a point that is better than the Bolt - who doesn't have a dedicated battery factory - there is a serious issue.
@daniel Sorry your right the number 4 is expressed as 10 in base 2
Good luck explaining that to mass media.
"Can't" and "won't" are different things. If the demand is there to support the various software-enabled battery tiers at their respective price points, then I don't see the issue. The resolution and screen size of Iphones has lagged behind Samsung for a while now despite a higher price and I don't think anyone views Apple as an abject failure. You could probably apply the specs/cost comparison across the board to their entire product line too. At the end of the day, a phone is more than its resolution and a car is more than its range.Tesla pretty much has to make the base 3 range longer than the Bolt's. Otherwise Chevy/GM beat Tesla at Tesla's own game; they already brought it to market a year before the 3.
And realistically, if Tesla can't make their base 3 with a longer range than the Bolt at approximately the same price (slightly lower MSRP, actually), then Tesla's Gigafactory 1 is an abject failure. If it can't reduce the cost of the 3's batteries to a point that is better than the Bolt - who doesn't have a dedicated battery factory - there is a serious issue.
I would be happy with 250 miles.
So what? Same goes for ICE and mpg. Lots of people don't do "lots of motorway driving". If you don't like the standard measurement, you should take it up with the appropriate agency. It is what it is -- a flawed standard.250 miles is definitely a lot better than 215, but when you factor in real world conditions / lots of motorway driving it still looks like it'll be under 200 for most people.
Tesla wants the competition to start making attractive BEVs. If the Bolt has a greater range than the base Model 3, that just means Tesla's strategy is working. The competition is finally starting to show up.Tesla pretty much has to make the base 3 range longer than the Bolt's. Otherwise Chevy/GM beat Tesla at Tesla's own game; they already brought it to market a year before the 3.
Tesla intends to make money, GM doesn't need to - a token 50k BEVs per year is negligible.And realistically, if Tesla can't make their base 3 with a longer range than the Bolt at approximately the same price (slightly lower MSRP, actually), then Tesla's Gigafactory 1 is an abject failure. If it can't reduce the cost of the 3's batteries to a point that is better than the Bolt - who doesn't have a dedicated battery factory - there is a serious issue.
I think this is why I disagreed on your estimated range. I think it will have more buffers in the brick-protection at the bottom. If we assume it is 4kWh unusable at the bottom (is not that what TMS has?) - and use yours calculation for the rest, that 57.6kWh battery is 53.6kWh usable - 53.6 / 0.223 ~= 240 miles. And the 75D will have 76.8-4=72.8 kWh usable, that would be 72.8 / 0.23 ~= 316 miles. Or do you have any good reason to expect that brick-protecting buffer to be at under 2kWh?... around 56 kWh usable ...
I think this is why I disagreed on your estimated range. I think it will have more buffers in the brick-protection at the bottom. If we assume it is 4kWh unusable at the bottom (is not that what TMS has?) - and use yours calculation for the rest, that 57.6kWh battery is 53.6kWh usable - 53.6 / 0.223 ~= 240 miles. And the 75D will have 76.8-4=72.8 kWh usable, that would be 72.8 / 0.23 ~= 316 miles. Or do you have any good reason to expect that brick-protecting buffer to be at under 2kWh?