Super Ludicrous and 400+ Mile Range Model 3...

[mrbulk]

...supposedly does indeed exist, at least the 400+ mile range version anyway:

Tesla leak shows Model 3 with 100 kWh battery pack, would have over 400-mile range - Electrek

 

[run-the-joules]

"A 100 kWh in a Model 3 would undoubtedly result in over 400 miles of range – up from 322 miles in current Model 3 Long Range vehicles."

Someone want to break the news to Fred that a ~33% increase in battery capacity doesn't result in a ~33% increase in range, unless they're somehow doing it without adding mass?

 

[MagnusMako]

100kWh sounds like it would be using a newer battery in order to be denser and they are prepping for it. It's my understanding the current battery pack maxes out the space, but I could be wrong.

 

[SammichLover]

"A 100 kWh in a Model 3 would undoubtedly result in over 400 miles of range – up from 322 miles in current Model 3 Long Range vehicles."

Someone want to break the news to Fred that a ~33% increase in battery capacity doesn't result in a ~33% increase in range, unless they're somehow doing it without adding mass?

1) Assuming it is an extra 33% mass to get an extra 33% capacity is not a safe assumption.
2) (100/75)*322=429 , so 33% would be way over 400 miles. An extra 300lb mass, 7.5% mass increase, isn't going to cost more than 8% of range. Mass increase doesn't cause a linear Wh/m drop like that, otherwise there'd be a lot bigger efficiency difference between the LR RWD and the SR RWD.

EDIT: Math correction.

 

[run-the-joules]

…uncomfortable thought:

What if the reason they're removing more and more creature comforts and amenities is because they're trying to find small places to save mass just to hit the dumb 400 mile mark? Pyrrhic victory.

 

[run-the-joules]

1) Assuming it is an extra 33% mass is not a safe assumption.
2) (100/75)*322=443 , so 33% would be way over 400 miles. An extra 300lb mass, 8% mass increase, isn't going to cost more than 10% of range. Mass increase doesn't cause a linear Wh/m drop like that, otherwise there'd be a lot bigger efficiency difference between the LR RWD and the SR RWD.

I'm not assuming it'd be a 33% mass increase. Far from it.

I take issue with his use of "undoubtedly", mainly. Is it possible? Sure. Is it "undoubtably" true? No.

Edited to add: also your formula works out to 429.3R

 

[SammichLover]

I'm not assuming it'd be a 33% mass increase. Far from it.

Then your math gets even worse for it not making it over the 400 mile mark.

I take issue with his use of "undoubtedly", mainly. Is it possible? Sure. Is it "undoubtably" true? No.

"Undoubtably" as in the opposite makes zero physical sense.

 

[run-the-joules]

Then your math is even worse.

Strong words from the guy who got 322*1.33 wrong

 

[run-the-joules]

"Undoubtably" as in the opposite makes zero physical sense.

I'm just sayin', if I were a public figure or anything similar, I might consider avoiding using absolutes whenever practical when predicting things. I also freely admit I don't like Fred

 

[SammichLover]

Strong words from the guy who got 322*1.33 wrong

Looks like I fat fingered on the calculator (332 instead of 322).....and yet it still doesn't actually matter, still lower percent diff than just a straight mass scaling. Decent chance it doesn't get a lot over 400, but mass has very little impact on a body in motion and with regen recovering about 70% of the kinetic energy (wheel to battery to wheel cost is about 30%) that cost extra electrical energy.

Mass definitely does matter more with ICE, but we're in BEV town so as long as you don't use friction brakes (which is how you get those nominal ranges) it'll do better than supposed mass increase.

Undoubtably.

I also freely admit I don't like Fred.

I hear that a lot. I generally speaking avoid him because in my limited experience he strikes me as a total pud.

 

[run-the-joules]

Looks like I fat fingered on the calculator.....and yet it still doesn't actually matter, still lower percent diff than just a straight mass scaling. Decent chance it doesn't get a lot over 400, but mass has very little impact on a body in motion and with regen recovering about 70% of the kinetic energy that cost extra electrical energy.

Mass definitely does matter more with ICE, but we're in BEV town so as long as you don't use friction brakes (which is how you get those nominal ranges) it'll do better than supposed mass increase.

Undoubtably.

It'll quite likely end up squeaking by as long as the EPA does what they expect, I suspect. After all, if the Model 3 can't do the same rated range as the big chonky SOB that is Model S with the same capacity battery… for shame. Now that the Model S is the first car to do it, it makes sense for them to rapidly get the 3 there as well to grab those sweet sweet extra revenue dollars.

 

[SammichLover]

Now that the Model S is the first car to do it, it makes sense for them to rapidly get the 3 there as well to grab those sweet sweet extra revenue dollars.

Marketing wise my guess is the chokepoint is more likely on the acceleration performance side of it. Once the top end of the Model S (Plaid or whatever) makes enough room it allows them to take the Model 3 down below 3s 0-60. Stupid amounts of acceleration, and some top end to match, is the marque that sells $125K or whatever priced vehicles.

 

[SammichLover]

BTW the "undoubtably" has an important caveat. That Tesla even makes a 100kWh RWD, rather than only having an AWD Performance version. The P PUP already ships stock with arguably less tire than it should for "Performance" vehicle that intends to make turns, and those tires already would make it close. Widening the tire to accommodate extra mass, and the P already having poorer efficiency, could very well cost it enough not to make 400 miles EPA (unless Tesla does a shell game where they test on "base" tires instead of what a PUP ships with, then it is a very hollow EPA number).

 

[Knightshade]

It's from a car from Jan 2019.

It's unclear if it's a tesla mule (where obviously they'd use a cheaper 3 to test stuff going into any future car)- or if EGs hacked stage 3 plan is putting a P100D drivetrain into a 3.... or if this guy (as someone elsewhere speculated) just got a leftover computer from a test mule since a previous twitter post mentioned he was acquiring a used computer and he doesn't actually have the batteru

 

[Uncle Paul]

At the same time, Tesla has announced that their new Model S Long Range + now gets over 400 miles epa range. Lower pricing too.

 

[P3dStealth]

Get rid of the frunk, front motor, rear under trunk compartment.

Fill it all with battery and sell it as a model 3 extended range.

Not saying this is what they did but some would buy it if they did.

 

[EfficientWatts]

Just curious, anyone know the approximate dimensions of a hypothetical 2020 roadster (probably 2021 or later at this point) battery pack vs a model 3 one? Wonder if this could be a semi-test run for the roadster, with the difference being a double-stacked battery pack as a possibility.

 

[cypho]

Get rid of the frunk, front motor, rear under trunk compartment.

Fill it all with battery and sell it as a model 3 extended range.

Not saying this is what they did but some would buy it if they did.

Why does the 3 have to be slower and cheaper than the S? How about instead of ditching the front motor, replace it with the induction motor from the Ludicrous S and sell it for $99,999.

A $100K Model 3 would be more profitable than a $100K Model S, so who cares if it would poach from potential Model S customers.

And if the S can do 0-60 in 2.3, a smaller/lighter 3 with the same battery and motors as the S could probably do it in 2.1-2.2!

 

[SammichLover]

Get rid of the frunk, front motor, rear under trunk compartment.

Filling crumple zones with extra, oddball shaped battery packs doesn’t strike me as a good plan.

Getting rid of the front motor while adding mass out in front of and behind the wheels would make it a far less desirable handling and performing car.

 

[hydro 481]

@run-the-joules @SammichLover

Glad you guys kissed and made up <3