-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
This article What options are Tesla Model 3 reservation holders looking at? says only 5% of reservation holders will opt for the bare bones model and 75% want the largest battery pack. It also says Tesla is planning on building the fully loaded highest profit cars first. Because the federal tax credit runs out on car 200,001, buyers will be encouraged to get the more loaded version in time to take advantage of the credit.
If the 70 kw battery has 304 miles of range, does anyone want to speculate on how big the 215 mile battery will be?
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Hi Blissedout I would suggest you check out this excellent thread since it explains how the federal tax credit works and does not run "out on car 200,001" but has a phase out period.
Tax Credit Clarification
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It's a fair question I don't know the answer to.
I used 'production line switch' somewhat generically to mean whatever they have to do to install a different sized pack. Is it really no different than a different chair ?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I suspect these numbers will shift a bit when reservation holders see the sticker price to upgrade and reality kicks in. And regarding the the tax credit, another 50 thousand will probably get the full amount and many many more will get the reduced credit amounts.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The article says
Keep in mind that people are voicing an opinion before they know the cost, and the poll is mostly from active TMC readers.
Interesting I suppose, but I urge caution in thinking it is indicative of the eventual choices of the other ~ 300k reservation holders.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
"Send more paramedics."
...
"Send more cops."
-- 'Return of the Living Dead' (1985)
My error-prone posting that I didn't proofread in time is now cemented in the annals of internet archival history. Of course I meant parenthetically, "that includes autopilot also." Not a big deal since the topic remains speculative anyhoo.
I drive the Prius more gently than the Roadster because I hate burning gasoline, but my electricity here in the pacific northwest comes from hydro. Accelerating moderately in the Prius I stay with the flow of traffic. Flooring the Roadster, I hit the in-town 35 mph speed limit before most of the other cars have crossed the intersection.
Have you driven a P85D or better? Not only is it quicker than the Roadster, it handles better as well. The dual-motor system holds the road on curves like it's on rails. The only advantage left to the Roadster is that it's gorgeous. And mine, being Very Orange, is the most gorgeous of all. But the S is too big a car for me, thus I'm waiting for the 3.
(ETA: And the sedans are safer than the Roadster.)
Why would it be any different? Two or three piles of battery packs, and the robot grabs the appropriate one and plugs it in.
I'm expecting to have to pay $75 for my configuration, minus whatever the Roadster is worth in trade (since I don't have garage space to keep both) and I'll pay it and feel I've gotten a good deal. Top trim line except I don't want leather or a glass roof.
Why would it be? Install (or not) a box in another box, Make some connections. Perhaps set some switch. Done. Or if done on a cell level, half fill a box with cells, make some connections. Set switch. Done. The only hard part is if you want an actual human to make an actual visual confirmation.
Oh, and put the right emblem on back...
Thank you kindly.
Thanks for that link. The numbers in that post are a little different than my numbers but not by much. I think the difference is that I am taking also the rolling resistance.
Cheers,
Eric B.
I think we'll have to disagree on which is the "better" car. For me, the Roadster is not a car you get into; you put it on. It becomes part of you, or you part of it. I haven't figured out which. I have driven and been driven in the performance MS models, but I still don't get that experience. I think it's mostly the size. I've never been a fan of full sized cars, even ones that could take you into orbit if you let them. The Model 3 will be smaller, yes, but would still fill the same footprint in our garage as our Honda SUV.
I don't have a reservation in for the Model 3 for this reason, though if (when) the Honda were to need replacing, I would absolutely consider it.
p.s. We do agree about safety
p.p.s. Thunder Gray is the best Roadster color
I think we'll have to disagree on which is the "better" car. For me, the Roadster is not a car you get into; you put it on. It becomes part of you, or you part of it. I haven't figured out which. I have driven and been driven in the performance MS models, but I still don't get that experience. I think it's mostly the size. I've never been a fan of full sized cars, even ones that could take you into orbit if you let them. The Model 3 will be smaller, yes, but would still fill the same footprint in our garage as our Honda SUV.
I don't have a reservation in for the Model 3 for this reason, though if (when) the Honda were to need replacing, I would absolutely consider it.
p.s. We do agree about safety
p.p.s. Thunder Gray is the best Roadster color
I love driving my Roadster. But I consider the difficulty of "putting it on" and "taking it off" to be a downside, not an upside. I do not love the difficulty of seeing past the behemoth SUVs from my low vantage point, or the fact that it's harder for other drivers to see. I love the quick response and acceleration, the maneuverability, and the looks. The Model S is much too big for me, and the Model 3 is bigger than my ideal. My old 1989 Civic was the perfect size for me. But the 3 is an acceptable size, still a beautiful car, and I expect that with dual performance motors it will handle even better and accelerate at least as well.
ETA: My little Zap Xebra was the perfect size for all my in-city needs.
Rashomon
Member
I'm using rolling resistance as well, but assuming state-of-the-art tires giving about a .007 coefficient. Tire companies are on record that Tesla was setting aggressive goals for rolling resistance when combined with its cornering requirements.
I would prefer tires maximized for handling and performance and safety, without regard to rolling resistance. I'd rather lose some range (I'll never use the 300 miles of the pack I expect to buy) than compromise on safety or performance. I don't think I like the idea of pushing the limits of rolling resistance because I'm sure there will be trade-offs.
Let them cite specs for range on the low-rolling-resistance tires, but offer tires maximized for safety and performance as an option.
Let them cite specs for range on the low-rolling-resistance tires, but offer tires maximized for safety and performance as an option.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
If rolling resistance were truly the preeminent factor behind Tesla's choice for tires, the Model ≡ would end up with 165mm wide tires a 65% profile height on 14" wheels inflated to 60 PSI. That would adversely affect handling, performance, and safety -- every stop would be an emergency stop. I figure the car will at least come with 235mm wide tires a 40% profile height on 18" wheels inflated to around 40 PSI, instead. That should provide decent handling, performance, and safety, while still allowing for an improvement in rolling resistance, and longevity, compared to more traditional compounds. I'm sure that there are some people frugal enough to prefer replacing their tires every 30,000 to 50,000 miles, instead of every 3,000 to 5,000 miles. And let's face it, this is meant to be the 'affordable' car. Right? And Tesla's computer systems will certainly be able to manage grip on the chosen compound to allow for maximum performance without burning rubber. The 'Lookit All the Smoke!' crowd is sure to be disappointed when attempting donuts and figure-8 loops in abandoned parking lots, though.
Similar threads
