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.
Less overall drag.Why does the Model 3 potentially get 300 miles with the 75 battery, but the S only 250?
Lower weight, slightly less frontal area, lower coefficient of drag (almost 15 percent), and perhaps some efficiency improvements from lower rolling resistance tires, the new inverter, and perhaps a smaller motor.Why does the Model 3 potentially get 300 miles with the 75 battery, but the S only 250? Is it simply the weight difference? Or better battery, or both?
-smak-
Pretty safe to assume/think that they will just slap a 75 kWh battery in every car and dumb it down to say a 55 or 60 kWh as they did with the S. Thoughts?
nope. Too expensive. The margins will already be pretty tight. Also that means that they are "wasting" almost 30% of the cells they put in. So for every 4 model 3 55kwh cars that are sold they wasted enough cells to make another car. Maybe in a few years when the gigafactory if fully ramped up they could do that.
No. They are trying to reach 30% gross margin. Click HERE to read things Elon promised to the board. Let me copy that:Pretty safe to assume/think that they will just slap a 75 kWh battery in every car and dumb it down to say a 55 or 60 kWh as they did with the S. Thoughts?
No, not even 3. I would expect 2 battery sizes. Btw, there is a topic here for predictions: Prediction Thread - "You Called It" In that thread, I made predictions for both of the topics you mentioned. My predictions are:Yeah thats true. So I guess they will have probably no more than 3 options? 50/55, 60/65 and a 75?
Pretty safe to assume/think that they will just slap a 75 kWh battery in every car and dumb it down to say a 55 or 60 kWh as they did with the S. Thoughts?
Thermal problem in the pack is due to power, not due to current nor voltage (there is very slight current related heat in conductors, but let's concentrate on chemical reaction only).I don't think the additional power will be provided by more current (which would touch on a thermal problem), but rather by more voltage.
Definitely not. Not a single normal sized passenger vehicle will be able to receive 250kW without external cooling system. 5% charging inefficiency would be 12.5kW of heat. Only way is to make charging process extremely efficient, which might be more than 5-6 years from nowadays.My expectation for charging is something like a 500 kW supercharger with four stalls, where each stall can recieve 250 kW.
No. They are trying to reach 30% gross margin. Click HERE to read things Elon promised to the board. Let me copy that:
They are a few percentages below 30%. Your idea would completely destroy any hope for better profit margins. At $150/kWh, 20 kWh difference between 55 and 75 kWh would cost $3,000. If the average sale price of the Model 3 55 is $42,000, that would mean 7.14% profit margin loss. Of course, some people will take the upgrade. Let's say -3% effect on average. They are currently around 27%. Your idea would drop that to 24%. It would be the most terrible idea in Tesla's history. It's not going to happen.
Successful completion of the Model X Alpha Prototype; [completed]Successful completion of the Model X Beta Prototype; [completed]Completion of the first Model X Production Vehicle; [completed]Successful completion of the Model 3 Alpha Prototype; [completed]Successful completion of the Model 3 Beta Prototype;[completed]- Completion of the first Model 3 Production Vehicle;
- Gross margin of 30% or more for four consecutive quarters;
Aggregate vehicle production of 100,000 vehicles; [completed]- Aggregate vehicle production of 200,000 vehicles; and
- Aggregate vehicle production of 300,000 vehicles.
It's primarily about aerodynamics: the 3 has a lower CD (based on Elon's stated objective of 0.21) which in part is from a smaller frontal area and also from the body shape.
Amen.Finally we can put an end to some of the ridiculous speculation.
Thermal problem in the pack is due to power, not due to current nor voltage...
Here I'm talking about the supercharger cabling/connectors and also the cabling inside the car to the battery.Thermal problem in the pack is due to power, not due to current nor voltage (there is very slight current related heat in conductors, but let's concentrate on chemical reaction only).
250kW charging was achieved a decade ago in a passenger vehicle (the Phoenix Motorcar SUT). That uses a 35kWh Altairnano pack, which is a lithium titanate based pack. That has extremely low internal resistance and is a low density chemistry, so I didn't bring it up initially.Definitely not. Not a single normal sized passenger vehicle will be able to receive 250kW without external cooling system. 5% charging inefficiency would be 12.5kW of heat. Only way is to make charging process extremely efficient, which might be more than 5-6 years from nowadays.