[Speculation] Model 3 0.237 kwh/mile!

[slipnslider]

at 55 kWh usable it's 232 miles range.
at 59 kWh usable it's 248 miles range
at 60 kWh usable it's 253 miles range

I'd have no problem with the low pack being in the 230-250 mile range.

I wonder what 253 miles of range translates to when you're at high speeds around 80mph running AC?
I'd guess around 200?

 

[electracity]

This would make all this moot, right?

What is the deal with TMC and "moot"? Soon you will be spreading your word problems to iceland and beyond.


moot
mo͞ot/
adjective

1. 1.
   subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
   "whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point"
   synonyms: debatable, open to discussion/question, arguable, questionable, at issue, open to doubt, disputable, controversial, contentious, disputed, unresolved, unsettled, up in the air
   "a moot point"
   • 
     

verb

1. 1.
   raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
   "Sylvia needed a vacation, and a trip to Ireland had been mooted"
   synonyms: raise, bring up, broach, mention, put forward, introduce, advance, propose, suggest
   "the idea was first mooted in the 1930s"

noun

1. 1.
   historical
   an assembly held for debate, especially in Anglo-Saxon and medieval times.
2. 2.
   LAW
   a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise.

 

[kbM3]

What are the implication of a super efficient model 3? Does it hurt S/X sales?

I think that number is too good to be true, but it is intriguing and big news if true.

It will be cheaper to charge.
It will be quicker to charge.
It allows a smaller battery and pack for a given range. This means less cost, lighter weight, better handling, smaller tires needed, better acceleration, smaller brakes needed.. Basically saving weight is extremely desirable in a car. Often times automotive engineers search desperately to save a few grams of weight here and there.

Edit: I just realized some of my points are oversimplified. You can either extract more range from the same battery size, or use a smaller battery for the same range.

A smaller battery may reduce the rate at which you can charge in kilowatts, but since you are gaining more ranger per kWh this would be offset. Also, lighter weight aids acceleration, but the power does come from the battery so a smaller battery may hurt acceleration if it is the limiting factor.

 

[slipnslider]

We have a leased i3 as a stopgap alongside our Model S, and our lifetime average is a hair over 4.2mi/kWh. That puts it almost exactly in line with the Model 3 number in play here, depending on whether or not charging inefficiencies are accounted for. It would indeed be a solid offering with great range implications if this proves to be the case.

Tomorrow evening we may not know the whole story, but we'll certainly know more! Looking forward to it.

It'd be amazing if the M3 is as efficient as the i3 without resorting to those silly wheels the i3 uses. They're the reason I just couldn't buy one.

 

[electracity]

If you need a larger vehicle to carry more cargo or to carry 7 passengers, or just to show off, then you'd need S/X.

Well, first I would run a massive HUD. But that is just me.

I hate to encourage the local fanatics, but that efficiency would be great for share price. It would mean that Tesla R&D has been very productive.

 

[JeffK]

It will be cheaper to charge.
It will be quicker to charge.
It allows a smaller battery and pack for a given range. This means less cost, lighter weight, better handling, smaller tires needed, better acceleration, smaller brakes needed.. Basically saving weight is extremely desirable in a car. Often times automotive engineers search desperately to save a few grams of weight here and there.

shh don't say benefits of Model 3 or else S/X buyers may get buyer's remorse and demand more to one up the Model 3.

 

[kbM3]

shh don't say benefits of Model 3 or else S/X buyers may get buyer's remorse and demand more to one up the Model 3.

I wonder if sometime in the future Tesla will completely redesign the model S? I would imagine it is fairly low on their priority list at this point in time. Especially since no competitors (Other than the model three) even seem close yet.

 

[erthquake]

I wonder what 253 miles of range translates to when you're at high speeds around 80mph running AC?
I'd guess around 200?

Going from 65mph to 70mph and turning on the AC on the S75 reduces the range from 265 miles to 228 miles. So 200 miles sounds about right. Though the 3 has less drag than the S.

 

[SageBrush]

I'd guess around 200?

I wouldn't ?

 

[electracity]

It will be cheaper to charge.
It will be quicker to charge.
It allows a smaller battery and pack for a given range. This means less cost, lighter weight, better handling, smaller tires needed, better acceleration, smaller brakes needed.. Basically saving weight is extremely desirable in a car. Often times automotive engineers search desperately to save a few grams of weight here and there.

Edit: I just realized some of my points are oversimplified. You can either extract more range from the same battery size, or use a smaller battery for the same range.

A smaller battery may reduce the rate at which you can charge in kilowatts, but since you are gaining more ranger per kWh this would be offset. Also, lighter weight aids acceleration, but the power does come from the battery so a smaller battery may hurt acceleration if it is the limiting factor.

Slower to charge, I think.

 

[electracity]

It'd be amazing if the M3 is as efficient as the i3 without resorting to those silly wheels the i3 uses. They're the reason I just couldn't buy one.

I avoid the i3 due to my irrational fear of clowns.

(Actually I do like the interior)

 

[KarenRei]

Going from 65mph to 70mph and turning on the AC on the S75 reduces the range from 265 miles to 228 miles. So 200 miles sounds about right. Though the 3 has less drag than the S.

Caveat: EPA range for the 75 is 249 miles. 65mph with no AC (19" wheels, 70°F) gets more range than the EPA range. So if you're starting with a Model 3 EPA range of 253mi (the premise), and want to scale it proportionally to the S, it would become 232 miles range.

 

[bcsteeve]

I'm confused on all these claims of paying $0.04/kWh in this thread? I'm in Canada, but a little Google says the lowest price in the USA is WA state at 7.41c/kWh. Illinois is middle of the pack at 9.28c/kWh.

I've been always told that we (in BC) have among the lowest rates in the world... I pay 8.5c (Canadian, which is around 6.8c USD right now).

So where's the 4c??

 

[KarenRei]

Slower to charge, I think.

Not for a specificied wattage of DC power, or AC under the max for the charger. Even on AC with the Model 3 charging at 48A and the Model S at 72A, the Model 3 would actually charge a touch faster (range per unit time) if these energy consumption numbers are correct.

 

[JeffK]

when some of these people keep saying faster to charge they keep neglecting to mention only if you measure in miles/minute.

I'm confused on all these claims of paying $0.04/kWh in this thread? I'm in Canada, but a little Google says the lowest price in the USA is WA state at 7.41c/kWh. Illinois is middle of the pack at 9.28c/kWh.

I've been always told that we (in BC) have among the lowest rates in the world... I pay 8.5c (Canadian, which is around 6.8c USD right now).

So where's the 4c??

Here in Indy if they are able to pull 50 kW minimum:

 

[SageBrush]

Here in Indy if they are able to pull 50 kW minimum:

Ignoring the customer charge of $120 a month, the lowest possible per kWh charge is under 6 cents if the kW demand charge can be optimized, say with battery storage. Kind of interesting

 

[JeffK]

Ignoring the customer charge of $120 a month, the lowest possible per kWh charge is under 6 cents if the kW demand charge can be optimized, say with battery storage. Kind of interesting

Tesla charges the end user 8 cents per minute under 60 kWh so assuming higher than 1C charge rate it's < 8 cents per kWh plus the 400 kWh free so it's really going to be pretty awesome.

 

[electracity]

I'm confused on all these claims of paying $0.04/kWh in this thread? I'm in Canada, but a little Google says the lowest price in the USA is WA state at 7.41c/kWh. Illinois is middle of the pack at 9.28c/kWh.

I've been always told that we (in BC) have among the lowest rates in the world... I pay 8.5c (Canadian, which is around 6.8c USD right now).

So where's the 4c??

He must be referencing electricity only. Delivery (wire charges) is separate.

 

[Foxhound199]

What is the deal with TMC and "moot"?

I don't know about in Iceland, but in the US the definition you give for "moot" has evolved to something potentially debatable for theoretical or academic purposes, but for which there is no practical application of the resolution. That is, if a point is moot, that means you could debate it, there's just no reason to.

 

[electracity]

Not for a specificied wattage of DC power, or AC under the max for the charger. Even on AC with the Model 3 charging at 48A and the Model S at 72A, the Model 3 would actually charge a touch faster (range per unit time) if these energy consumption numbers are correct.

I was thinking of supercharging. Fewer cells is a higher C rate per cell. So the max rate for the pack is less. Perhaps I'm thinking about it wrong.