TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Poll - why dropping the 75 S/X?

Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by Buckminster, Jan 9, 2019.

?

Why are Tesla dropping the 75 S/X?

  1. To replace with a rebranded Standard Range (minor refresh) approx April

    10 vote(s)
    6.3%
  2. To replace with a rebranded Standard Range (interior refresh) approx April

    7 vote(s)
    4.4%
  3. To replace with a rebranded Standard Range (interior refresh + 2170) approx April

    29 vote(s)
    18.1%
  4. Unaltered 100 will be the only option in 2019 (~$10K price drop)

    30 vote(s)
    18.8%
  5. Refreshed 100 will be the only option in 2019

    17 vote(s)
    10.6%
  6. 120 will be introduced alongside an 85-100 in 2019

    67 vote(s)
    41.9%
  1. dmurphy

    dmurphy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    New Jersey - Morris County
    Reading the twitter replies, someone asked if this means they’re moving to M3-type nomenclature (SR/LR/Performance/etc)... Elon’s reply was a simple “Yes”

    So that’s what I suspect we’ll see... the 75D goes away, maybe a new 85 or 100 pack becomes the new base (SR), and a 120+ back for (LR) and/or Performance.

    Just my guess.

    Which is wishful thinking as I’m looking to buy something by end of June. My current lease expires in November, but if I do something by end of June, I can at least recoup the $1875 in tax credits that will expire, and possibly get close to - or even - break even trading in the leased Cadillac.

    Started out looking at a Model 3, but would really prefer a crossover/SUV style body, as that’s what I have now. If we can get an 85-100 pack Model X at current 75D pricing, I think that’s a done deal for me.
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
  2. MXWing

    MXWing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    5,300
    Location:
    USA
    I think educated guesses can be made. Needing to increase the range to better position against competition, and creating enough differentiation between SR/LR Model S, 85/120 splits are pretty reasonable looking with 2170 battery cells.

    I called the death of the base S over half a year ago.

    Performance Model 3 is too cheap - about to drop some truth bombs.
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
    • Funny x 1
  3. chadever

    chadever Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2016
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Orem, Utah
    They are preparing to launch a revamped X and S that are built for the new cells

    In the future Tesla will decrease the kWh it's cars, but the range will stay the same because the car will be lighter (higher energy density cells + improvements to design).

    Many may perceive this as "downgrading" the car when in reality it's improving. Marketing the range instead of the kWh avoids this.

    Tesla's are also more efficient than the competition. Jaguar and Audi can't say that they have 90 kWh when Tesla only has 75 kWh. Now they will have to compare range, performance and price... giving Tesla an advantage.
     
    • Like x 3
    • Helpful x 1
    • Disagree x 1
    • Love x 1
  4. whitex

    whitex Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,672
    Location:
    Seattle area, WA
    If 15 miles makes such a big difference, you are very susceptible to weather and traffic conditions, or even things like how long you park your car in the winter when when you go to lunch. Ouch! I always try to keep a 40+ mile buffer on both the 75 and 85.
     
  5. sandpiper

    sandpiper Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Weight isn't a huge factor in range. Air resistance matters a lot more. If they cut the weight of the battery in half it would only drop 20% off of the weight, but the air resistance wouldn't change at all. Efficiency would improve a bit... maybe 5%.

    I think the SR/MR/LR terminology comes from Tesla getting lambasted for false advertising. The 85s/90s had much less actual capacity than the designation would imply. This way nobody can ever say that they lied.
     
  6. chadever

    chadever Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2016
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Orem, Utah
    I'm pretty sure weight is a huge factor. From what Tesla submitted to the EPA, the battery on the 100D is 28.2% of the vehicles weight. Cutting the batteries in half is losing 14.1% of the weight.

    Less battery also means less shield and less cooling, further reducing the weight.

    Now that the car is significantly lighter you could even reduce the size of the motors, the brakes and the suspension without performance loss.

    I'm sure there are plenty of other benefits I'm not thinking of.
     
  7. sandpiper

    sandpiper Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Nope. Or, at least a qualified nope. Weight is a factor of course, but at highway speeds coefficient of drag and cross sectional area are dominant. Weight can significant in hilly terrain (less so with regen) or at very slow speeds.
     
  8. neroden

    neroden Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    11,454
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY, USA
    So there are only two possibilities:
    (1) There is actually enough demand for the S100/X100 to eat up all current production, and Tesla knows this from order data. This would be insanely bullish. I don't believe it, but I would love to be proven wrong.
    (2) They're retooling the line, thus slowing production, and eliminating the lower-end car while they do the retooling. This seems more likely. I do not pretend to know what the production will be after the retooling is done.
     
    • Informative x 2
    • Helpful x 1
    • Like x 1
  9. Galve2000

    Galve2000 Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    790
    Location:
    NYC
    +1
     
  10. Tic-tac-toe

    Tic-tac-toe Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2018
    Messages:
    114
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Agree with this. S/X are the flagships. And if P3 sales are hurting sales of the S, then it makes sense to go with the car with higher margins.

    You never hear from Mercedes that the sales of their C/E class cars are hurting sales of their S class cars. Totally different markets. As Tesla becomes a Major brand and not a niche seller, it makes sense to segment the market for their cars.
     
    • Like x 1
  11. Uncle Paul

    Uncle Paul Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,277
    Location:
    Canyon Lake,CA
    Interesting enough is that sales of S and X have remained strong, even after the availabiilty of the Model 3.

    The S is still the most beautiful of all the 4 door models, and the hatch back design gives tremendous versatility.
    The X gives that desirable high command seating, seating for up to 7, towing capability and qualifies for Section 179 business tax credits.

    Model 3 is the nimble, urban choice with lower costs.
     
  12. bonaire

    bonaire Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,408
    Location:
    USA
    1- Most registrations in Norway were for 75s in both MS and MX. Would seem to be similar in the USA too, based on Troy's tracker.
    2- maybe.
    3- "surprise" announcement is always possible. Maybe an MS convertible? Early Roadster (big profit margins on that)?
     
  13. EvanLin

    EvanLin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Asia
    #34 EvanLin, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:39 AM
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019 at 12:49 AM
    That's not how you calculate C-rate.



    From this video, we see max current @116kW is ~320A.

    S P85D has 74 cells in parallel, so the charging current for a single cell is 320A/74=4.32A

    It's about 1.27C or 1.39C (depends on it's 3400mAh or 3100mAh for a cell)
     
  14. bhtooefr

    bhtooefr Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2018
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    Newark, OH, USA
    Calculating C rate from kW charge rate / kWh accounts for voltage on both sides of the equation, though, so it's a very decent approximation.

    (It doesn't account for the fact that capacity is quoted at nominal voltage, and Supercharging happens at variable voltage, whereas C rate is typically quoted on amps / Ah capacity, but it's close.)
     
    • Like x 1

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC