Poll - why dropping the 75 S/X?

[dmurphy]

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.

 

[MXWing]

exact capacity will only be speculated upon.

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.

 

[Daniellane]

2 articles on this...

Elon Musk’s Latest Lineup Changes Make Tesla More Upscale — Barron's

Tesla to stop selling cheapest versions of Model S and Model X, says Elon Musk — USA TODAY

 

[chadever]

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.

 

[whitex]

15 miles really isn't all that much.. until you actually need it.

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.

 

[sandpiper]

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.

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.

 

[chadever]

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.

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.

 

[sandpiper]

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.

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.

 

[neroden]

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.

 

[Galve2000]

(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.

+1

 

[Tic-tac-toe]

None of the above. Simply improving the profit margins.
75 S and X discontinued

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.

 

[Uncle Paul]

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.

 

[bonaire]

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.

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)?

 

[EvanLin]

Current S75D gets max 95kW = 1.26C
Current S100D gets max 118kW = 1.18C
1.5C = 150kW maximum

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)

 

[bhtooefr]

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.)

 

[MakeUSGreat]

The 100 will be the norm, if you can’t aford a s or x, get a 3 and y when it’s available.

 

[Buckminster]

Tesla Model S and Model X gets cheaper by $8,000 in newest version

Why are Tesla dropping the 75 S/X?

1. 
   To replace with a rebranded Standard Range (minor refresh) approx April
   11 vote(s)
   6.6%
2. *
   To replace with a rebranded Standard Range (interior refresh) approx April
   7 vote(s)
   4.2%
3. 
   To replace with a rebranded Standard Range (interior refresh + 2170) approx April
   32 vote(s)
   19.2%
4. 
   Unaltered 100 will be the only option in 2019 (~$10K price drop)
   30 vote(s)
   18.0%
5. 
   Refreshed 100 will be the only option in 2019
   18 vote(s)
   10.8%
6. 
   120 will be introduced alongside an 85-100 in 2019
   69 vote(s)
   41.3%
   

 

[Galve2000]

if the $8,000 extended range is the old 100D, what is the non-$8,000 option?

How are they extending the range?

Or are they removing range from the 100D?

This is getting very strange.

 

[Daniellane]

if the $8,000 extended range is the old 100D, what is the non-$8,000 option?

How are they extending the range?

Or are they removing range from the 100D?

This is getting very strange.

Full explanation / analysis here:
Tesla Daily: Tesla News & Analysis by Rob Maurer on Apple Podcasts

 

[bhtooefr]

Or are they removing range from the 100D?

Yes.

(And the $8000 Extended Range option is $1000 cheaper than the old 100D.)

In the old nomenclature this would probably be "90D" or maybe "95D", but it's through a software pack limitation of the 100 kWh pack, just like the launch Model S 40 kWh pack (software-limited 60 kWh), or the 2016-2017 60/70 kWh packs (software-limited 75 kWh).