-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster!
- Thread starter omgwtfbyobbq
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
I wasn't clear with my Q, I've since edited it to:
"Anybody know why Tesla would voluntarily lower their EPA #s on the Model S/X where they have had zero competition?"
Ah, in that case.. let me make a new guess..
I'd guess they did it on the S/X to more easily meet the expectations of Model S/X owners who were traditional ICE drivers (people who would've bought a S-Class or 7-series, for example). The Model S/X owner who came from a big, powerful V8/V12 and a lead foot is going to complain when the EPA is 350 and they're only getting 310, for example. The owner of an ICE who doesnt get EPA may complain a little on a public forum, but YMMV is pretty much the norm. With an EV, it could mean getting stranded somewhere. In that case, the owner is going to be extremely unhappy.
Thats my guess anyway.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Understood -- thanks.
I accept that you have found the fudge factors for the raw UDDS and Highway test for the Model S and Model X. I'm less sure that you can use either for the Model 3 except as a 'close enough' exercise.
My guess is, they have done it to make the Model X look good. There are two reasons why I think that way:
- They have only voluntarily lowered Model S range numbers but never the Model X numbers
- The difference was already small between the Model S 75D and Model X 75D. So they didn't bother lowering the Model S 75D number.
Drive Cycle Speed Tolerance Criteria Used Part 86 (+/- 2 mph, +/- 1 sec)
Here is how I found the unreduced numbers (S100D=341 mi etc):
- Open this page on the EPA website.
- On the table, in the first column, click on "2017 Datafile" or just click here.
- Open the file in Excel. Switch to the tab called 'EV' and select cell FH65 as an example and look at the formula. In this example, the formula says "=339.1*335/341.0225". See screenshot here. What this means is, the combined range was originally 341.02 miles and the city range was 339.1. Then Tesla voluntarily reduced the combined range to 335 miles. Now they need to reduced the city range too and the way they are doing is by reducing it proportionally to the combined range. In other words, EPA is playing along with the volunteer reduction and they are helping out to calculate the reduced city and highway ranges too. Unfortunately, only the 2017 file has the unreduced numbers because in this file EPA forgot to convert the formulas to static numbers.
The impression the public had about electric cars before Tesla came along was they were compromised designs that you had to give up a lot to own. The offerings from the major car companies have mostly helped that impression. The Roadster proved that an EV could be a fun car to drive, but it was a niche car.
The Model S was designed from the ground up to be as superior as possible to an ICE in almost every way. It is more energy efficient, better acceleration, better cargo capacity, usually more convenient refueling, and is very quiet compared to an ICE. The supercharger network makes up for most of the problems with long range travel, though it isn't quite as good for time of refuel compared to an ICE.
Tesla had to set out to destroy all the ammunition for the spreaders of FUD out there. And they did.
Most EVs are built to appeal with eco buyers only. They have created an eco car ghetto for small, short range, low cargo capacity cars that are often fugly too.
Tesla builds cars to compete with ICE. The cars look good and are built to be superior to the cars in their segment. Most people buying $100K sedans also have a sports car, or have driven sports cars many times. An EV sedan that can destroy much more expensive sports cars on the drag strip gets great press for the brand and draws in buyers.
The real competition for the Model 3 are cars like the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. It doesn't need the performance of a sports car, but if it has some of that, that can't hurt sales. In any case, if it's better than Camry in every way, that's all that's needed to kill the mid-sized ICE sedan segment.
Brando
Active Member
Well, I think you have to submit the proper car to get EPA rating - i.e. the car you submit gets the rating and you can't just use those number on another model. I know, the diesel guys got away playing those deceptive games with EPA, but they eventually got caught. And so many OEMs wanting to remove Tesla as a competitor (you all know the Wall St. BS, bad reviews etc.) that Tesla has to be careful.
Brando
Active Member
Model 3 will kill the LUXURY mid-sized ICE sedan - cars priced from $35,000 and up.
Better than a Camry in EVERY WAY? That is not so easy to do. Price the most obvious. But for some gas/maintenance savings may justify, but still might require the pay a little more for eco advantage. Now 5 years from now, look out.
We shall see. Sadly, another economic meltdown and who knows what plays out...
The Model S upsold a lot of people into a price category they never would have considered. A survey of Model S owners found that half had never owned a car worth more than $60K before. The last new car I bought was $22K.
If you look at the midsized car market, most sedans in that market have a trim level at or above $35K. The top two Camry trims start at $34,400 and $34,950. There are quite a few car buyers out there who can stretch their budget a few thousand if they can justify it. For buying a car with a lower cost of ownership, they probably can justify that stretch in many cases.
The Model 3 could massively disrupt the car industry. The Europeans are taking the threat seriously because they see what the Model S did to the top end of the sedan market. The Japanese and Americans are less worried because they think little of their business has been lost to Tesla yet. They don't know they lost my business to Tesla.
Sorry if I have missed discussion of this in this thread or elsewhere.
I can't get specific energy density to add up from the info we now know. First, lets assume nameplate battery pack capacity (if there were a badge) would be 50kWh and 75kWh, based on Elons comments, and also matching the 2 modules vs 3 modules (or multiplies thereof) I think has been confirmed for the pack architecture elsewhere.
Now, what is actually the correct weight for Model 3 SR vs LR? Electrek and others gives 3549 lbs vs 3814 lbs post the delivery event. The EPA HTSLV00.0L13 document give 3837 lbs vs 4250 lbs.
This gives me a stark difference of 208 Wh/kg vs 133 Wh/kg. The latter data based on the EPA doc is obviously wrong. What am I doing wrong here?
In the EPA file there is also the data-point "Battery Specific Energy 150" (without any units, is this gravimetric, what unit?). This also seems obviously low if this is Wh/kg.
If 208Wh/kg is right, do you think this is at pack level, or module level, i.e, when they strip out a third of the pack in the SR, how much pack penalty is there left? Or put alternatively, do we know the pack vs module design in the case of M3, is it one big pack with "vulnerable" modules in as in the S and X, or, is it 3 modules (or 6 as was indicated in the video of the 2016 reveal) that are more sturdy, arranged individually in the bottom of the vehicle, so that the weight difference between M3SR and M3LR is really attributable to difference in specific energy density at pack level.
My best estimates before the M3 reveal for system level specific energy density was around 170-180 Wh/kg, based on the gradual advancements in Model S. I would be pleasantly surprised if it is above 200 Wh/kg.
I can't get specific energy density to add up from the info we now know. First, lets assume nameplate battery pack capacity (if there were a badge) would be 50kWh and 75kWh, based on Elons comments, and also matching the 2 modules vs 3 modules (or multiplies thereof) I think has been confirmed for the pack architecture elsewhere.
Now, what is actually the correct weight for Model 3 SR vs LR? Electrek and others gives 3549 lbs vs 3814 lbs post the delivery event. The EPA HTSLV00.0L13 document give 3837 lbs vs 4250 lbs.
This gives me a stark difference of 208 Wh/kg vs 133 Wh/kg. The latter data based on the EPA doc is obviously wrong. What am I doing wrong here?
In the EPA file there is also the data-point "Battery Specific Energy 150" (without any units, is this gravimetric, what unit?). This also seems obviously low if this is Wh/kg.
If 208Wh/kg is right, do you think this is at pack level, or module level, i.e, when they strip out a third of the pack in the SR, how much pack penalty is there left? Or put alternatively, do we know the pack vs module design in the case of M3, is it one big pack with "vulnerable" modules in as in the S and X, or, is it 3 modules (or 6 as was indicated in the video of the 2016 reveal) that are more sturdy, arranged individually in the bottom of the vehicle, so that the weight difference between M3SR and M3LR is really attributable to difference in specific energy density at pack level.
My best estimates before the M3 reveal for system level specific energy density was around 170-180 Wh/kg, based on the gradual advancements in Model S. I would be pleasantly surprised if it is above 200 Wh/kg.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
@Buran,
- The EPA HTSLV00.0L13 does not show any data for the Model 3 55. It only shows data for the Model 3 80. Weight numbers are displayed here.
- "Battery Specific Energy = 150" is Wh/kg at the pack level, not at the cell or module level.
- Model 3 weight difference: 3814 lb - 3549 lb: 265 lb = 120.2 kg is close but the Model 3 80 has a larger charger. You need to subtract that too. Let's say 12 kg difference for the larger charger. That means the calculation would be 25,000 Wh/108 kg = 231 Wh/kg. That is at the cell level.
- By the way, check out this old document.
Last edited:
WK057 has said that the LR Model 3 has 4 modules, and that the modules aren't all the same: the outside two have fewer cells than the inside two.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Thanks for this. So the weight diff is 120 kg minus charger, i.e., 231Wh/kg as you say. But, is this really cell level?
If 150 Wh/kg is correct at pack level, then the pack weight for 75 kWh is 500 kg, close to the MS 85 (2014) 545 kg (using the values in the pdf on MS you linked). If you would do a 85kWh battery with this tech it would weight 566kg, i.e., more than the 3 year old pack 2014 MS. So, it is worse pack level energy density than for the design 3 years back? I have a hard time believing that. Maybe the devil is in the detail, lets call it roughly the same pack level density, still strange.
Also, if you take the pack weight to vehicle weight ratio, then with 150 Wh/kg the M3 LR gets 28,9% pack weight ratio, and the MS85 gets 26,7%. Can they really have designed M3 with higher pack to car weight ratio? Put differently, the model 3 without battery pack would then weight 1230 kg, the MS85 would be 1504 kg and M3 would be only 80% of the weight of MS despite the physical dimensions being around 95% for width and lenght and the same height, or about 90% of volumetric size. Remember that the Model S has lighter materials than M3 if we are to believe Elons/Straubels comments that it is not as much aluminium, not the other way around. Something does not add up.
Edited for clarity/gramar
Last edited:
It seems that Tesla is being very conservative with the 0-60 time estimates (via software limitations) for both the SR and LR versions. What I want to know is, how confident can I be that my 'first production' RWD M3 will get an software update for 0-60 acceleration down the line? I know 5.1 seconds is pretty fast, and maybe I bought into the hype, but I was expecting the LR battery to be a bit quicker. If the car has far more potential that will be released via software (and it sounds like it does) I'd obviously rather have the car now than wait since my delivery window is 11-17 thru 1-18. However, if 5.1 seconds is the fastest the initial releases are likely to ever go, I might have to alter my plan. Acceleration is one of the biggest reasons I'm buying this car, so I might just buy the base model to get the max tax credit, then sell it for roughly what I paid for it (once the tax credit disappears/when the performance version is available. But this assumes I can even afford the P80, and that's probably unlikely. So many questions still remain - I really hope I have more info to make my decision when I get the call to configure!
We can't answer that question. Assuming it is software restricted, Tesla could be tempted to leave it that way to get people to want the newer quicker versions instead of turning to the used market.
They can use performance improvements as a way to spur more sales when they finally have extra inventory.
Tesla has a history of slowly increasing performance during model updates to keep customers coming, and to even get some to pay to upgrade to newer/better.
With that said, I am planning to get a first available Model 3, and would be overjoyed if they decide to improve my performance via software later.
I think the 75/75D Model S performance bump was maybe a one-time type of situation where they wanted to make sure that Model S was really differentiated from Model 3.
They can use performance improvements as a way to spur more sales when they finally have extra inventory.
Tesla has a history of slowly increasing performance during model updates to keep customers coming, and to even get some to pay to upgrade to newer/better.
With that said, I am planning to get a first available Model 3, and would be overjoyed if they decide to improve my performance via software later.
I think the 75/75D Model S performance bump was maybe a one-time type of situation where they wanted to make sure that Model S was really differentiated from Model 3.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Similar threads
