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.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
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.
No.
For one thing, "officially win the race for mass market EV" is meaningless. There is no "official" contest and no "official" judge or criteria for "winning" the race. For another thing, if Tesla makes and sells ten times as many EVs as Chevy does, then 38 miles of range difference on the cheapest trim line fades into insignificance. And lastly, Chevy makes one EV, the Bolt, while Tesla will be making three when the Model 3 comes out, with plans to make more and more.
Not to mention the contest for most reliable EV, safest EV, and availability of fast charging. And not to mention the iconic Roadster that started it all, and the likelihood that Tesla will some day make a Roadster Mk II, which will blow away every other street-legal car in existence.
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.
A base "55" kWh Model 3 with 57.6 kWh or around 56 kWh usable, would go 56 / 0.223 = 251 miles.
And a top end "75" kWh Model 3 with 76.8 kWh or around 75 kWh usable, would go 75 / 0.23 = 326 miles. (0.23 instead of 0.223 because of slightly higher weight.)
That said, I do agree with the posters here who say that it is likely not a priority for Tesla to beat the Bolt on range in the base version. I just think they will, based on the available battery tech data.
Last edited:
JeffK
Well-Known Member
alseTrick
Active Member
alseTrick
Active Member
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.
Rashomon
Member
Yes. See this thread: Poll: Guess 70 mph Steady State Range of Model 3 Vs Bolt
The M3 will likely to have a base pack between 50 and 55kWh. Hitting the price point for the base M3 will be the most important thing, so achieving something like 220 miles EPA will be sufficient. There's no reason to beat the Bolt, as they don't really compete except in a superficial way. The M3's bigger pack will need to push up toward 300 miles of range, and may be around 70 kWh.
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.
It also doesn't, in any way, imply that the GF is a failure, it just means that the base Model 3 is using a smaller battery than the Bolt. That battery is probably still much cheaper than a comparable one would be in the Bolt which just allows Tesla to add more to their vehicle.
Okay, now you're just being silly on purpose. In base two the right-most digit (or the first digit left of the "decimal" point, actually the binary point) is the one's digit. The next digit to its left is the two's digit, so 10 is two. The next digit to the left is the four's digit, so 100 is four. 100.01 would be four and a quarter.
The mass media don't care about numbers (since all their readers/viewers are innumerate). They don't care about facts because nowadays you get to make up anything you like and claim it as fact. The mass media will tout whatever they like, and denigrate whatever they don't like, numbers and facts be damned.
So petrolheads in the media will slam Tesla no matter what the Model 3 does, and treehuggers in the media will praise the Model 3 because Tesla is the electric-car company. And everyone else will just print click bait that has no connection to reality one way or another. The Model 3 will follow the same path as the Prius did: At first it will be bought by early adopters and treehuggers. Eventually, when it becomes clear that it's a good car that lets you fill up in your garage on the cheap instead of paying gasoline prices at a stinky old gas station, ordinary people will start buying it, and the conversation will no longer be about the technology, but just about what a good car it is and how cool it is to be able to drive past the gas station.
"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.
3Victoria
Active Member
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.
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 intends to make money, GM doesn't need to - a token 50k BEVs per year is negligible.
If GM wants to actually compete with Tesla, they need to start producing 500k+ Bolts. At that volume the CARB credits start to lose their value for GM (they'll have more than they need to offset their SUV sales, and will have to start selling the credits at pennies on the dollar), they certainly don't have the battery supply, and they will need to make a profit, as the figures involved get quite high. Tesla just needs to keep harrassing the large car companies, forcing them to fight a war on Teslas home turf. GM is the first company to try.
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?
Tesla currently uses 2.4kWhs anti-brick on the smaller batteries and 4kWh on the larger batteries.
Similar threads
