Tesla blog yesterday repeats 215 mile range estimate

[cdub]

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.

Tesla is anti-selling the 3 because you can't buy one RIGHT NOW. They're trying to avoid any Osborne effect.

They're also trying to tamper down the hype that the 3 will be a top of the line lux car.

But as soon as you can actually BUY the 3 RIGHT NOW... you can be sure they're going to be selling the F out of it.

 

[cdub]

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.

I'd love it to be over 300... but let's not get ourselves convinced that it is as that'll only lead to disappointment. I think it'l be in the high 200s but I don't think it'll be over 300.

Where did you read that the bolt is a 60?

 

[Candleflame]

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.

I do sometimes wonder about this though; as the battery gets used it will warm up under it's own heat. So if you prewarm the battery or after driving i.e. 100km the battery should be warming itself to a nice operating temperature and there should be no rangeloss?

 

[Sonny Daze]

So basically a: "Hey competitors, this is what we're going to release 6 months from now. You can't copy us, because we have dibs.", announcement?

The 3 will be on the street in 3 or 4 months (if hopeful estimates are correct). I don't think the competition would have time to do much to their 2018 vehicles that will be on dealer lots in Sept/Oct. However, if Tesla is expecting a delay...

 

[Model 3]

I don't think the competition would have time to do much to their 2018 vehicles that will be on dealer lots in Sept/Oct.

Maybe not, but it could impact their 2019 models.

 

[Candleflame]

Tesla is anti-selling the 3 because you can't buy one RIGHT NOW. They're trying to avoid any Osborne effect.

They're also trying to tamper down the hype that the 3 will be a top of the line lux car.

But as soon as you can actually BUY the 3 RIGHT NOW... you can be sure they're going to be selling the F out of it.

That's kind of Tesla's own fault for repeatedly overhyping their own product. I always believed the M3 was gonna be like a smaller Model S with slightly less features (i.e. smaller screen, maybe no electric seats, no vented seats, smaller battery, less performance, smaller dash, similar to a Bmw 3 series vs 7 series). But for some reason people kept arguing that it was gonna be the new Model S. Didn't help that on some pictures it looked like it was almost the same size as a model s.

 

[cdub]

If they are concerned about potential S buyers delaying because they have one eye on the potential of the 3, and the 3 really is as "inferior" as Elon is hinting, why not just have a reveal and announce option prices?

Ding ding ding! Because it's not that inferior. He's trying to sell cars that he can sell RIGHT NOW and to not get people to wait for the 3 if they can afford an S. (Which will have more bells and whistles)

I don't care for all the bells and whistles... I just want a fun long range EV that is affordable and awesome. Model 3 fits the bill easily.

 

[Candleflame]

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

Thank you kindly.

Well crusing on the motorway your regenerative breaking doesnt really do anything. It's all about CD and efficiency and range. It comes down to that a lot of people dont CARE (note, CARE, not UNDERSTAND) that ICEs are also affected by speed.

I.e. my 60L ICE car gets probably around 900-1000km of range if you cruise at 100km/60mph. But in reality I drive more like 140kmh (85mph) on long distances so my range is around 650kmh.

I have once driven an extended segment on the Autobahn when I visited my parents at around 200kmh (110mph) and I blew about half of my fuel tank after an hour of doing that. So yould say that cruising at 200kmh/110mph I only have a range of 400km.

400km is still decent so noone cares.

The same rules apply for the EV. 400km (or whatever) at 100kmh /60mph which then shrinks down to 100km/60 mile range driving at 200kmh/110mph.

Do you care now? Yes you do, because it's just not practical.

 

[deonb]

Your feedback would be better received if you cut out the sarcasm and get to your point. All you had to say in the first post was that the range would decrease dramatically if you drive above XX mph. Thank you.

Sorry, didn't see you were fairly new on the forum. We've been living with this frustration for years. The EPA range has no bearing for any of us in terms of what you actually see on the road.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's kind of Tesla's own fault for repeatedly overhyping their own product. I always believed the M3 was gonna be like a smaller Model S with slightly less features (i.e. smaller screen, maybe no electric seats, no vented seats, smaller battery, less performance, smaller dash, similar to a Bmw 3 series vs 7 series). But for some reason people kept arguing that it was gonna be the new Model S. Didn't help that on some pictures it looked like it was almost the same size as a model s.

Actually I would say it's the fans over here that overhyped it. Tesla halted promotion of it after the reveal.

However fans made up things and convinced themselves it would happen (see HUD, second display, 100kWh battery, more base range than Bolt, much cheaper option prices than Model S, etc). Heck there was even a fan-made configurator for the Model 3, with prices.

When the disappointment sets it, it wouldn't be because Tesla overhyped the car, it would be the fans.

 

[cdub]

Actually I would say it's the fans over here that overhyped it. Tesla halted promotion of it after the reveal.

However fans made up things and convinced themselves it would happen (see HUD, second display, 100kWh battery, more base range than Bolt, much cheaper option prices than Model S, etc). Heck there was even a fan-made configurator for the Model 3, with prices.

When the disappointment sets it, it wouldn't be because Tesla overhyped the car, it would be the fans.

Agree 100%

 

[stopcrazypp]

Because they are different technologies with different physical features? For example, fuel will not diminish in a tank while parked in the cold. A battery will lose energy while parked in the cold. That is just physics affecting different types of containers and liquids inside them differently based on their properties.

Actually a battery won't be losing any additional energy from the cold parked (vampire draw will exist as always, but that is from always-on electronics, which in an ICE car would draw down the 12V battery).

What actually happens is internal resistance goes up in low operating temperatures which reduces battery efficiency (similarly ICE friction/efficiency changes with temperature). But when brought back up to operating temperature all that energy comes back (minus what is used for heating).

And heating brings up the actual major difference: an ICE has lots of waste heat it can use for heating, a BEV doesn't.

If you drive an ICE in the cold vs a BEV without using heat, they would be similarly affected. But if you use heat, the ICE would tend to better because it has "free" heat.

 

[22522]

A new customer will not be able to receive a model 3 for... until 2019? So the 3 will not be 'available' for a while.

 

[FlatSix911]

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

@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.

007, good point regarding the optimistic EPA ratings. Currently, it's the only way to compare mileage across different manufacturers.
Based on Troy's calculations, we should end up with rated ranges very close to numbers shown below based on battery size .... YMMV

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Actually a battery won't be losing any additional energy from the cold parked (vampire draw will exist as always, but that is from always-on electronics, which in an ICE car would draw down the 12V battery).

What actually happens is internal resistance goes up in low operating temperatures which reduces battery efficiency (similarly ICE friction/efficiency changes with temperature). But when brought back up to operating temperature all that energy comes back (minus what is used for heating).

And heating brings up the actual major difference: an ICE has lots of waste heat it can use for heating, a BEV doesn't.

If you drive an ICE in the cold vs a BEV without using heat, they would be similarly affected. But if you use heat, the ICE would tend to better because it has "free" heat.

I am no battery expert, so your description can certainly be helpful. However, whatever does it, the Model S uses much more energy when driving in freezing weather - and it does not even out over long distances, but continues to result in faster decreasing range even after time.

And every night you park a Tesla low on energy, it will happily announce that significantly less will be available once you return to the car - and it is right. Over night part of that energy has gone somewhere. (Also regenerative braking will be gone for a long time, meaning further relative losses.)

These things do not happen in an ICE, not in this manner, though of course a cold engine uses more gasoline until it warms up.

 

[Gen3Joe]

That's kind of Tesla's own fault for repeatedly overhyping their own product. I always believed the M3 was gonna be like a smaller Model S with slightly less features (i.e. smaller screen, maybe no electric seats, no vented seats, smaller battery, less performance, smaller dash, similar to a Bmw 3 series vs 7 series). But for some reason people kept arguing that it was gonna be the new Model S. Didn't help that on some pictures it looked like it was almost the same size as a model s.

This comparison to BMW works for everything but performance. The BMW m3 out performs the higher end m5 in both acceleration and handling. I hope the Model 3 acceleration is only slightly less than the Model S and not significantly less.

Let Model S be the range and luxury king but please don't sacrifice the performance of the Model 3 Tesla!

 

[Topher]

Your feedback would be better received if you cut out the sarcasm and get to your point.

Not every reply is a criticism. Sometimes they are just disagreements, or even just amplifications.

Thank you kindly.

 

[S3XY]

If the Model 3 is at 297 miles of range I have to believe that they will find a way to squeeze out a few extra miles to get into the 300's. So I wouldn't be surprised if the ranges end up being 225 and 305 miles. But this is just my own SWAG and may be wishful thinking.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This comparison to BMW works for everything but performance. The BMW m3 out performs the higher end m5 in both acceleration and handling. I hope the Model 3 acceleration is only slightly less than the Model S and not significantly less.

Let Model S be the range and luxury king but please don't sacrifice the performance of the Model 3 Tesla!

Audi is different in that regard, though: Audi RS6 is quicker than RS4/5, similar to what we now expect Model S vs. Model 3 to be.

However, I agree it is a bit disappointing: seeing Model 3 Performance as an even more serious BMW M3 competitor (as in better than Tesla's "M5") would have been great. Alas, Model 3 seems like a bunch of lost opportunities.

 

[Gen3Joe]

Well crusing on the motorway your regenerative breaking doesnt really do anything. It's all about CD and efficiency and range. It comes down to that a lot of people dont CARE (note, CARE, not UNDERSTAND) that ICEs are also affected by speed.

I.e. my 60L ICE car gets probably around 900-1000km of range if you cruise at 100km/60mph. But in reality I drive more like 140kmh (85mph) on long distances so my range is around 650kmh.

I have once driven an extended segment on the Autobahn when I visited my parents at around 200kmh (110mph) and I blew about half of my fuel tank after an hour of doing that. So yould say that cruising at 200kmh/110mph I only have a range of 400km.

400km is still decent so noone cares.

The same rules apply for the EV. 400km (or whatever) at 100kmh /60mph which then shrinks down to 100km/60 mile range driving at 200kmh/110mph.

Do you care now? Yes you do, because it's just not practical.

Nicely put.

I get tired of EV enthusiasts pretending like the range issue doesn't exist. It's not helpful to the cause. I'm a huge EV fan myself by the way but well aware of their strengths and weaknesses and what mainstream consumers are willing to accept.