Yep it's been removed. This means to me that the information was accurate.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[Speculation] Model 3 0.237 kwh/mile!
- Thread starter Swampgator
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
By the way, on the model three owners club forum they are now joking that you work for Tesla, because right after you asked for the URL it was taken down by Tesla
Hahaha oh geez... I hope I don't end up accidentally becoming the center of a new storm of corporate intrigue, I had enough of that during Aptera's collapse
(Long story short: when Aptera's board hired Paul Wilbur, who then proceeded to run the company into the ground, I started publishing leaks from the company, which apparently set him off on an angry hunt for the leaker. The truth of the matter was, there was no "leaker", singular - almost all of the people who were in any position of significance in the company, apart from Paul and his friends, were leaking to me
Why to me, I'll never know...) Moral of the story, corporate morale matters, and if your staff thinks you're ruining the company....)By the way, here's one more thing that occurred to me. A battery chemistry or cooling improvement to improve maximum charge rates wouldn't have all that meaningful of an impact on Model S and X charge times. It might bring the charge from "80% in 30 minutes" to "90% in 35" minutes, or something similar, but ultimately they're going to be limited by the current that the superchargers can deliver (until Musk starts building out the V3 network); the 0-80% time would not significantly decrease, only the charge percent at which the charger has to start throttling back..
However, the same improvement in a small-pack, efficient EV would actually significantly improve charge times. For a 50kWh pack it'd mean 80% in 20 minutes, not 30, on a V2 supercharger.
I wonder if Tesla has such a chemistry / cooling improvement up their sleeve - whether at launch, or at some point in the next few years?
However, the same improvement in a small-pack, efficient EV would actually significantly improve charge times. For a 50kWh pack it'd mean 80% in 20 minutes, not 30, on a V2 supercharger.
I wonder if Tesla has such a chemistry / cooling improvement up their sleeve - whether at launch, or at some point in the next few years?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
As someone else mentioned a while ago, we cannot have Model 3 holding up the line when a Model S is waiting.
Elon has been cryptically mentioning keeping some model three powder dry. I wonder if it has to do with supercharger V3?
Also, there is the promise on the auto pilot cross-country drive, that supercharging will be automated. I wonder if we will see that "charge from underneath" concept that was in their patent?
Doesn't matter. You put some amount of energy into the car from the wall. Then some amount leaves to propel the car. There are losses everywhere.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Speaking of losses, I'm losing my mind waiting for tomorrow. I don't know if I'll be able to sleep tonight.
I don't think so. Charging is already pretty darned efficient. Using what we currently know, the Model 3 should weigh something like ~15% less than the Model S, and have ~16% better aero.
If we assume Tesla has improved charging efficiency to 90% (currently at ~85% for Model S), that would be 213 Wh/mile, compared to the Model S at ~280 Wh/mile. That works out to 24% lower consumption. There's just nowhere for Tesla to get those extra 8-9% in any reasonable way. The Model 3 would have to have a Cd of 0.19 and a weight of 1500 kg. Something like that.
It's not *completely* impossible, but it would mean that Tesla has been holding out on us. The car would likely be all aluminum, and I have no idea how they'd get to 0.19 Cd. Maybe they could offer optional wheel arch covers. Maybe something like 0.20 and 1600 kg could be sufficient, if Tesla has gone for a permanent magnet motor, and has really managed to cut down on ancillary losses. Maybe they've installed a heat pump, for instance.
I think all of this is very unlikely.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Are you including any differences in frontal area ?
I used 2.22 m*m and 1800 Kg for the Model 3 and and 2.34 m*m for the Tesla and came up with ~ 40 Wh/mile difference in combined road and aero drags between the cars at 65 mph (105 kph.)
Last edited:
The EPA testing isn't done at (only) 65 mph. The testing is done at a wide range of speeds, temperatures, etc.
With no ancillary losses, identical tires and a perfect battery and drive line, a car with 10% lower weight and 10% better aero will be rated at exactly 90% of the consumption of the reference car.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I know. It just seems like 65 mph works out in many cases. Call it a rule of thumb
In this case the Model 3 Aero is 0.9*21/24 = 78% while the weight is 85%, both compared to the Model S.
The Aero will have a greater weighted effect
Last edited:
(2.24 x 0.21) / (2.34 x 0.24) = 0.837
That's 16.3% better aero. And I think weight will matter more, actually. Aero is less important up to around 50 mph for the Model 3, and most of the testing is done at under 50 mph. Also, weight impacts losses due to braking/acceleration.
Last edited:
My most recent estimate was here (I think my estimate a few months ago was 295 miles):
If 237 Wh/mile is correct (for the 75 kWh version) and this is without charging losses, the range should be 314 miles with 74.6 kWh available.
If 237 Wh/mile is including 15% charging losses, and actual consumption is 201.5 Wh/mile, the range should be 370 miles with 74.6 kWh available!
One other wrinkle in this...
If 237 Wh/mile is legit, would it be for the RWD or AWD version?
On the "2017" Model S, there's a ~5% difference in EPA-rated efficiency between the 60/75 and 60D/75D.
5% isn't a big number, but it isn't insignificant either. In the mid-200's Wh/mi, it would amount to a ~12Wh/mi difference.
If 237 Wh/mile is legit, would it be for the RWD or AWD version?
On the "2017" Model S, there's a ~5% difference in EPA-rated efficiency between the 60/75 and 60D/75D.
5% isn't a big number, but it isn't insignificant either. In the mid-200's Wh/mi, it would amount to a ~12Wh/mi difference.
I don't think we can assume there's much difference between the AWD version and the RWD version. These are newer motors, and they may be optimized more for efficiency rather than max power. The AWD version will weigh more, so even a slight change in the efficiency difference can wipe out the net gains. The Model 3 will also most likely have a higher *percentage* gain in weight with AWD compared to the Model S.
BluestarE3
Active Member
Say, your real name doesn't happen to be Reince Priebus, does it?Hahaha oh geez... I hope I don't end up accidentally becoming the center of a new storm of corporate intrigue, I had enough of that during Aptera's collapse
(Long story short: when Aptera's board hired Paul Wilbur, who then proceeded to run the company into the ground, I started publishing leaks from the company, which apparently set him off on an angry hunt for the leaker. The truth of the matter was, there was no "leaker", singular - almost all of the people who were in any position of significance in the company, apart from Paul and his friends, were leaking to me
Code was leaked on Tesla website that showed 237Wh per mile efficiency
Just posted on electrek.co
Metric conversion is 407 km & 509 km respectively
Tesla accidentally reveals Model 3 efficiency hinting at impressive range
Just posted on electrek.co
Metric conversion is 407 km & 509 km respectively
Tesla accidentally reveals Model 3 efficiency hinting at impressive range
Last edited:
Similar threads
