OK, so for some like myself the range on the TM3 and even the s and x are not really enough to be comfortable without needed to find a charging station. My commute is around 300miles round trip and due to my job I am not always going to the same destination so an extra boost in battery capacity will be a massive help.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Your impication is that the battery could replace the frunk or trunk. These are not feasible battery options.
The battery will only be between the axles and kept out of the crumple zone. Additionally, the weight and systems complexity of splitting the battery in multiple areas in the car makes that design path very undesireable, to put it mildly.
The battery will only be between the axles and kept out of the crumple zone. Additionally, the weight and systems complexity of splitting the battery in multiple areas in the car makes that design path very undesireable, to put it mildly.
Agree with both comments. Improving range and allowing long commutes will need to be addressed with improved battery chemistry and supercharger expansion not messing with the Frunk.
James Anders
Member
igotzzoom
Active Member
200-ish is plenty for me. As battery technology improves, we will have 300-mile range in the same physical package size as today's 200-mile packs. Also, charging infrastructure will continue to improve. As these factors converge, the need for physically larger batteries will diminish.
I agree. ICE vehicle range between 300-450mi. They could carry more gas, but they typically don't. You could argue that BEVs need a longer range than ICEVs to counter the slower "refill" time, but I think the opposite is true. BEVs will have smaller (<= 300 mi) batteries because you can leave on every journey with a full tank and a far majority of the time the extra battery mass and cost would be wasted.
For a strickly commuter BEV, 125-150mi range is about the sweat spot in efficiency, cost, and around town flexibility. But a household with this car will (generally) need something else for easier long distance trips.
cdub
OG 2011 Leaf / 2023 Model Y LR
Putting any battery in the frunk would make the car very unsafe in a front end collision. That crumple zone is important.
I trust Elon's engineering skills over people on the internet.
I trust Elon's engineering skills over people on the internet.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I didn't vote because I didn't think it was a good question. Besides what others mentioned, putting it in the frunk will raise the center of gravity. This will adversely affect handling and may need suspension changes to handle.
I wouldn't imagine it being much different to having the weight of a decent sized engine up front. Suspension changes would not be a huge problem, yes the center of gravity would be higher but again it is in an ICE vehicle. Audi have been putting the engine in front of the front wheels for years.
Fanatic1
Member
Front end collisions force the engine into the passenger compartment. Not good. Most every ICE company puts their engines in the front. Tesla is trying to do everything better not just doing things because it's been done that way for years. Nevertheless, I wouldnt use what Volkswagen (Audi's parent company) does as the best example for anything these days... Just saying IMHO....
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Audi designed their whole platform around having an engine in the front, while Tesla designed their platform with the frunk compartment being used for cargo, not a high weight density part like a battery pack in the frunk. Having a battery there would require a significant redesign that is simply not worth it. Battery density will naturally increase over time (Tesla's success depends on this to achieve cost savings) and that is where additional capacity will come from, not simply finding some space to stuff more cells.
physicsfita
Member
Let's not forget that the Models 3 we saw at the reveal were RWD, and it was reported that the frunk was between the RWD and AWD variants of the Model S in size. Given that the AWD Model S can basically carry a gym bag in its frunk, I expect that the AWD variant of the Model 3 will have a very small frunk indeed.
I thought that the reveal cars were AWD and the frunk size is repesentative.
physicsfita
Member
I thought I heard that in one of the videos. That said, when I was searching again, in one of the test-drive videos the driver said it was AWD, but we didn't see the frunk in it. If they somehow managed to make the AWD frunk bigger in the Model 3 than the Model S, that is very impressive.
geoffreak
Driving My Model 3
My understanding is that this is a hypothetical question. Would you give up the frunk to have a larger range vehicle. This isn't the same as would you fill the frunk with batteries to increase range. As others posted, that's not the best of ideas, so we should stick to the hypothetical for the sake of conversation.
Also, I'm pretty sure that I heard in one of the reveal videos that they're going to compact everything in the production cars, allowing for more trunk and frunk space.
Also, I'm pretty sure that I heard in one of the reveal videos that they're going to compact everything in the production cars, allowing for more trunk and frunk space.
Numbers game: How much more range for how much less storage space?
20% more range for 30% less storage space and much worse handling.
Car battery (i.e. range) is not space limited, it is price-limited.
20% more range for 30% less storage space and much worse handling.
Car battery (i.e. range) is not space limited, it is price-limited.
Similar threads
