Tesla blog yesterday repeats 215 mile range estimate

[AnxietyRanger]

Dream on ... Tesla has repeatedly stated that the base Model 3 will have 215 miles of range

As I said, a smaller battery option Model 3 might have 215 miles of range. Though Tesla just repeating 215 miles does not confirm that the number has not changed, it only confirms Tesla has not announced anything more since last year... Tesla parroted old specs for Model X very late in the game too, only to announce new specs after the final unveil.

But that Model 3 in general would only have 215 miles? The likelihood of that seems very low to me.

In short: base model may be 215 miles or it may be more. A larger battery very, very likely to offer more range than Bolt.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

How exactly does that work? EVs are LESS concerned with speed changes, since they have regenerative braking.

Thank you kindly.

Well, for one: I said speed and weather. EVs are much more susceptible to range loss in cold weather. ICE basically evens out once it gets warm (a nice side product of being based on explosions), the loss of range in a BEV is very notable.

As for speed, a motorway speed in practice lessens Tesla range at rapid clip. This is not the same in an ICE. Even in warm weather that is not really something regenerative braking can offset enough. Combine that with colder speeds where regenerative braking might not even be available and the effects are of course even more severe.

Finally, a regular ICE usually has 600-800 kilometers of range compared to 300-400 km in a Tesla. That gives much more breathing room too.

 

[shrspeedblade]

I may not be the most wildly optimistic person, but it will be fun to watch the Model 3 doomsayers eat from the same platter of Crow that the Tesla shorts are eating from right now!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I may not be the most wildly optimistic person, but it will be fun to watch the Model 3 doomsayers eat from the same platter of Crow that the Tesla shorts are eating from right now!

There will be no doom. It will sell well. There is no real competition while there s real demand.

That said, it will also not be that great a car - I mean beyond limited dash and no hatch, also Elon has told us so.

 

[pkulak]

This is pretty simple, guys. Base will be 55 kWh and 215 miles. Highest will be 75 and about 295. Still technically less than the 100D Model S, but I don't care. That'll be what I reserve. I don't really care what the base model has under the floor.

 

[malcolm]

Audi or BMW would never anti-sell their lower-end cars like that,

Mmmm, not exactly what's happening here.

Yes, this is partly like any dealer trying to push the more expensive model.

But I think what makes this situation unprecedented is having to encourage customer reality-checking.

To use your example, BMW or Audi customers would never convince themselves that a forthcoming lower-end car would eclipse the top model - but that's what has happened.

There are lots of discussions on TMC arguing for just such possibilities - including quite a few posts from me.

 

[JeffK]

Not likely. The 75 S is 249. The base model 3 will be less than that.

You can disagree if you like, but that's what it's going to be.

Let's consider the Bolt as a reference 238 mi / 60 kWh * 75 kWh = 297.5 mi. If it's more efficient than the Bolt then, it'll be at or over 300 mi. Your opinion doesn't change the numbers.

 

[malcolm]

Hope that the 215 range value is linked to an average Winter temperature.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Mmmm, not exactly what's happening here.

Yes, this is partly like any dealer trying to push the more expensive model.

But I think what makes this situation unprecedented is having to encourage customer reality-checking.

To use your example, BMW or Audi customers would never convince themselves that a forthcoming lower-end car would eclipse the top model - but that's what has happened.

There are lots of discussions on TMC arguing for just such possibilities - including quite a few posts from me.

I don't think Tesla is engaging in reality-checking, even if that is the altruistic reasoning it is portrayed at. They are concerned about selling the Model S (and to a lesser extent the Model X).

Every car manufacturer knows new models attract attention away from old models, even between classes. Audi A6 customers can become high-end Audi A4 customers, when a new model arrives of the latter. Or at the very least it can delay purchase decisions, as new versions of lower-end models give hints of the future upgrades of higher-end models. A brand-new high-end Audi A4 can be, in some ways, more advanced than even an aging Audi A8 (though in the case of the A8 they try to introduce many upgrades to it as well).

That's why these other manufacturers use moves like discounts, free/improved option packages, as well as advertising to keep older models appealing. Since Tesla does none of the latter (apart some quarterly pushes), it has resorted to the rather unprecedented move of actually badmouthing their upcoming product to keep the existing product selling. A German car brand would simply price, package and market their existing model for more appeal. Tesla badmouths the upcoming one.

That's the real story here. Tesla facing the age-old problem of managing a product line-up of different ages, while refusing to use the methods traditionally associated with managing such a product line-up. So, they have to think of something else, and what they are thinking is not entirely without controversy.

It is a bit like those car delivieres en masse they are planning. Without a dealership network, Tesla is finding the limits of the what their own staff can do, so they are finding new solutions that are, again, not without controversy. Because Tesla does not want to have dealerships and thus not a large-enough store network, they will deliver your premium car in 5 minutes with 25 other people in the room sharing the experience. Not something usually associated with premium experiences.

Not without controversy.

 

[FlatSix911]

Cross post from this thread with data link Model 3 delivery estimator

Hi. I've added estimated rated range numbers to the displayed results. These are based on my calculations. I have a separate spreadsheet HERE in case people are interested. When the actual numbers are released, we can look back and see if the estimates were any good.
Estimated EPA rated range
Model 3 55: 218 mi
Model 3 55D: 227 mi
Model 3 75: 284 mi
Model 3 75D: 297 mi
Model 3 P75D: 281 mi

 

[WarpedOne]

How exactly does that work? EVs are LESS concerned with speed changes, since they have regenerative braking.

(In the context of EVs being more susceptible to bad weather, high speed etc).

From pure physics perspective, there is no real difference.
Difference comes from maximum range of each vehicle and usual daily driven miles.

If an ICE only had gas for say 100 EPA miles, one would experience exactly the same loss of range because driving 100 miles on HW in bad weather is nothing special, everyday stuff.
On the other hand once EVs get to 600 miles of EPA range, these bad weather, highspeed scenarios won't make that big difference any more because one seldom goes for 600 miles all at high speed over highway. There just ain't no such roads to do that. One won't be able to use all the stored energy in just one bad set of conditions.
He'll use some charge in bad weather and some in better weateher, averaging out the bad cases.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

(In the context of EVs being more susceptible to bad weather, high speed etc).

From pure physics perspective, there is no real difference.
Difference comes from maximum range of each vehicle and usual daily driven miles.

If an ICE only had gas for say 100 EPA miles, one would experience exactly the same loss of range because driving 100 miles on HW in bad weather is nothing special, everyday stuff.
On the other hand once EVs get to 600 miles of EPA range, these bad weather, highspeed scenarios won't make that big difference any more because one seldom goes for 600 miles all at high speed over highway. There just ain't no such roads to do that. One won't be able to use all the stored energy in just one bad set of conditions.
He'll use some charge in bad weather and some in better weateher, averaging out the bad cases.

How can you say that? Obviously the technology used can and do make a difference in how and why energy is consumed. For example, gasoline is not susceptible to energy loss through cold weather alone, while batteries are. Fuel will stay in the tank, while batteries lose their charge in cold weather, requiring heating which again consumes charge to produce. The reality is, in freezing weather, the 100 mile EPA gasoline car will likely make the 100 miles, while a 100 EPA BEV will fizzle out at, perhaps, 75 miles just to give it some number.

As for conditions, cold weather is one condition that is unlikely to be significantly evened out during long stretches of driving. I drove three winters in the Model S P85 and can definitely tell that dramatically less range was available during the winter. The car, of course, even constantly warns of this, so Tesla knows too.

I of course agree the range of each vehicle matters as well. But let's not pretend BEVs don't have some inherent challenges that are definitely different from ICE.

 

[WarpedOne]

I can only say read again, because clearly you have not understand what I had written.

 

[Laban]

We could probably make an educated guess by looking at the Hyundai Ionic numbers. It has the same 0.24 Cd as the Model S. The Model 3 is rumoured to have 0.21.

EPA ratings:

Hyundai Ioniq Electric becomes most efficient electric car ever rated by the EPA

That would imply that a 0.21 Cd 55 kWh Model 3 would have no problem beating the 0.32 CdA Bolt EPA. Also note that the difference between the Ionic and the much heavier Model S is low when you look at highway numbers only from Björn Nylands test:

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I can only say read again, because clearly you have not understand what I had written.

Do explain then.

You said:

"(In the context of EVs being more susceptible to bad weather, high speed etc)."

Yes.

"From pure physics perspective, there is no real difference.
Difference comes from maximum range of each vehicle and usual daily driven miles."

No. There are clear differences. They come from the difference of batteries holding charge vs. a gasoline tank holding gasoline, in relation to weather temperature. From a physics perspective, the chemical reactions within the liquids batteries and gasoline tanks hold - as well as the effect that has on their potential for conversion into kinetic energy - are different and so is their susceptibility to weather.

As said, unlike gasoline, cold weather is both directly (losing charge) and indirectly (need for battery heating) detrimental to battery charge, where as in an internal combustion engine the heat generated by the engine quite quickly offsets most normal temperature ranges in longer range driving, and of course gasoline does not disappear from the tank while parking overnight in freezing weather, which alone is such a clear differentiator it can not be ignored.

Differences also come from the application of that fuel in exchange for speed, for which different amounts of fuel are used based on the technology, relative to speed required. BEVs weakness are the (usual) motorway speeds, as their optimal speed range is below that from a consumption perspective.

If you meants something else, it is IMO not coming across. I am interested in a clarification?

 

[WarpedOne]

You are focusing on consumption and ignoring total capacity. When capacity gets big enough i.e. multiples of expwcted daily usage than those variations in consumption rate loose importance.

So what if high speed halves the total range when this halved total range is still three times more than I will ever drive in a single day?

Ice cars suffer from increased consumtion in cold, they suffer from increased consumption at high speed and also too low speed. But because they have onboard reserve so big that can last for weeks for some, people feel they are somehow different from evs.

The sole difference is in gallons. Model S lives on a third or half a normal gas tank.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You are focusing on consumption and ignoring total capacity. When capacity gets big enough i.e. multiples of expwcted daily usage than those variations in consumption rate loose importance.

So what if high speed halves the total range when this halved total range is still three times more than I will ever drive in a single day?

Ice cars suffer from increased consumtion in cold, they suffer from increased consumption at high speed and also too low speed. But because they have onboard reserve so big that can last for weeks for some, people feel they are somehow different from evs.

The sole difference is in gallons. Model S lives on a third or half a normal gas tank.

I have multiple times now said that I agree larger capacity will diminish such issues. So I am not disagreeing there.

What I have been disagreeing with is whether or not BEVs and ICEs are the same when it comes to effects of speed and weather. Clearly they are not. And while ICEs do suffer from increased consumption from high speed as well as cold weather, the effects are note quite as nearly as drastic as they are on a BEV. Increased consumption in cold is mostly related to the period when the engine is cold and will even out during range driving - and there is no loss of fuel during parking on an ICE. Also, regular motorway speeds on an ICE do not result in as dramatic increases in consumption as they do on a BEV. And of course, as a niche case, current BEVs are close to useless on autobahn speeds.

There will be certain scenarios, of course, where BEV has benefits over ICE too. High-altitude, low-oxygen environments are one, though offset by the fact that elevations are detrimental to consumption. BEVs can benefit from being able to start better in extreme colds. But given the average range of temperatures and motorway speeds, BEVs do have a disadvantage compared to ICE in weather and speed effects.

The lack of total range on BEVs, of course, adds tremendeously to this disadvantage, but is not solely the root of the disadvantage.

 

[diamond.g]

I have multiple times now said that I agree larger capacity will diminish such issues. So I am not disagreeing there.

What I have been disagreeing with is whether or not BEVs and ICEs are the same when it comes to effects of speed and weather. Clearly they are not. And while ICEs do suffer from increased consumption from high speed as well as cold weather, the effects are note quite as nearly as drastic as they are on a BEV. Increased consumption in cold is mostly related to the period when the engine is cold and will even out during range driving - and there is no loss of fuel during parking on an ICE. Also, regular motorway speeds on an ICE do not result in as dramatic increases in consumption as they do on a BEV. And of course, as a niche case, current BEVs are close to useless on autobahn speeds.

There will be certain scenarios, of course, where BEV has benefits over ICE too. High-altitude, low-oxygen environments are one, though offset by the fact that elevations are detrimental to consumption. BEVs can benefit from being able to start better in extreme colds. But given the average range of temperatures and motorway speeds, BEVs do have a disadvantage compared to ICE in weather and speed effects.

The lack of total range on BEVs, of course, adds tremendeously to this disadvantage, but is not solely the root of the disadvantage.

Do they not use winter blend fuels in the EU? Here in the US our winter fuel is usually worse than the summer blend and we take a pretty good hit in range/economy.

 

[Candleflame]

As you say EPA is different from real world. Everyone should know how their driving compares to their own particular driving. I, for example, get about 110% of EPA in summer and 94% in winter.

no not everyone drives a tesla like you so they DONT know how the advertsed range/consumption compares to real world.that you get 110% EPA in summer means you never drive on the motorway and if you do you dont drive reasonable speeds (80mph+)

How?



Math disagrees.

ehm.... if you have 1000km range and then loose 200km you don't really care if your ICE can go 800km or 1000km. It's plenty either way. If you drive 300km but only have 240km that harms you much more as your range is smaller to start with. Nothing to do with maths. Yes, you can put a 10L fuel tank in your ICE and then you have the same situation but that is just not the case.

The math is the same.

you can throw your insane mathematical knowledge around all you want but it doesnt change the real world facts.

Thank you kindly.

 

[tsla007]

@flat-I know it's a cross post but it's epa rating not true mileage. In reality you'll get more like 3.75m/kw. No way you'll get 3.96-it's nearly physics law impossible unless you're driving a rocket layed flat. Hills turns breaking accelerating all will take a toll at that imaginary 3.96/kw miles. If Tesla limits the base to only go 215 epa miles (he said those were minimum numbers-he hopes to exceed them) Bolt become much more attractive distance wise per cost. You don't get the SC network but you'll get to work and home just fine with something that's a little dull instead of hot.