Tesla readies revamped Model 3

[LiamPope]

I guess the logic is that even with the inefficiencies in conversion, you can store a lot more energy in the same space and therefore the vehicles will travel for much further.

Isn't that only true if it's liquid storage (I'm not actually sure)? Then it needs to be cryogenic which comes with all kinds of engineering/safety problems that might not have been factored in some theoretical efficiency analysis.

 

[dfwatt]

1,000 kWh is maybe a bit excessive as an example. We probably only need 150 kWh in a Model 3 to have a range compatible to most ICE cars. The weight difference won't be that massive and won't have a massive impact on efficiency. Model S goes further than Model 3 despite being larger and heavier, not all that extra weight is the bigger battery.

I think they've settled on a size that they think gives enough range to get people to buy a car without making them too expensive. It's not an efficiency choice but finding the right range vs price ratio at the moment. As they get cheaper though I do hope they'll give more expensive models larger batteries.

How many ice cars do you know that have EPA range of 650 Plus miles? You don't need that kind of range. Nobody wants to drive for 8+ hours before taking a bathroom break. I think you're confused about wish lists versus something that's really needed for practical transportation. By the time we finish coffee, bathroom break, stretching our legs, there's 5 minutes left in our charging cycle on our model 3s with a version 3 charger. 5 minutes. That's it.

 

[ACarneiro]

How many ice cars do you know that have EPA range of 650 Plus miles? You don't need that kind of range. Nobody wants to drive for 8+ hours before taking a bathroom break. I think you're confused about wish lists versus something that's really needed for practical transportation. By the time we finish coffee, bathroom break, stretching our legs, there's 5 minutes left in our charging cycle on our model 3s with a version 3 charger. 5 minutes. That's it.

Fair point but realistically a 650 mile EPA range would be 400-450 miles in the real world and that, I suspect, would appeal to a far greater number of people and use cases.
I appreciate we’re talking about the edges of the curve here but it seems to me that it’d be better for buyers to have the option of getting the car that best suits their needs.

 

[WllXM]

How many ice cars do you know that have EPA range of 650 Plus miles? You don't need that kind of range. Nobody wants to drive for 8+ hours before taking a bathroom break. I think you're confused about wish lists versus something that's really needed for practical transportation. By the time we finish coffee, bathroom break, stretching our legs, there's 5 minutes left in our charging cycle on our model 3s with a version 3 charger. 5 minutes. That's it.

The issue lies somewhere in the middle. We're not talking of 650 miles of actual range.

An ICE car can do 400 miles of actual driving on highway/motorways. A TM3 is advertised at 350 at best, but will only do 250 in those actual conditions. That's just about a 3 hour drive from full to empty. That's not enough. An actual 400 would be comfortable. So based on that a 50% increase of battery would be about right and make things more comfortable for everybody.

 

[MrBadger]

Isn't that only true if it's liquid storage (I'm not actually sure)? Then it needs to be cryogenic which comes with all kinds of engineering/safety problems that might not have been factored in some theoretical efficiency analysis.

It would have been factored into the review that I am talking about.

 

[dfwatt]

Fair point but realistically a 650 mile EPA range would be 400-450 miles in the real world and that, I suspect, would appeal to a far greater number of people and use cases.
I appreciate we’re talking about the edges of the curve here but it seems to me that it’d be better for buyers to have the option of getting the car that best suits their needs.

Actually my 300 mile Tesla gets more than 300 miles around town. It's only on the highway that there's 'range depreciation.' Unlike an ice vehicle. Again we're talking wishes more than needs. Most of what you're talking about is Newbee range anxiety. That goes away quickly with a little bit of experience. The real value of those bigger range batteries is in fact quicker charging (relevant on road trips only) because you can stay inside the faster charging Sweet Spot say 15 to 65%. As for wanting to drive more than 4 hours without stopping, that's an individual matter and you can speak for yourself on that. No thanks for me.

 

[ACarneiro]

Actually my 300 mile Tesla gets more than 300 miles around town. It's only on the highway that there's 'range depreciation.' Unlike an ice vehicle. Again we're talking wishes more than needs. Most of what you're talking about is Newbee range anxiety. That goes away quickly with a little bit of experience. The real value of those bigger range batteries is in fact quicker charging (relevant on road trips only) because you can stay inside the faster charging Sweet Spot say 15 to 65%. As for wanting to drive more than 4 hours without stopping, that's an individual matter and you can speak for yourself on that. No thanks for me.

I beg to differ. I've had my M3 since 2019 so I am not a newbie and at nearly 80.000 miles I think I can consider myself experienced enough.
As the vast majority of my driving is on motorway, I get a realistic 200 miles out of my battery in the winter, possibly up to 230 in the summer. I have no range anxiety, I plan and can do the journeys I need to do (even the longer ones) with a minimum of fuss.
My use case appears to not be the same as yours, and my M3 almost perfectly suits my needs...... but not quite
I still would prefer to have the option of buying a car with a real range of 400 miles.

 

[Jason71]

Actually my 300 mile Tesla gets more than 300 miles around town. It's only on the highway that there's 'range depreciation.' Unlike an ice vehicle. Again we're talking wishes more than needs. Most of what you're talking about is Newbee range anxiety. That goes away quickly with a little bit of experience. The real value of those bigger range batteries is in fact quicker charging (relevant on road trips only) because you can stay inside the faster charging Sweet Spot say 15 to 65%. As for wanting to drive more than 4 hours without stopping, that's an individual matter and you can speak for yourself on that. No thanks for me.

You are on the UK forum where temperatures are a little colder than they are in Florida. Around town generally means a series of short journeys each one, for about 9 months of the year, comes with a significant startup penalty so while i agree that I could probably drive around town in circles for 350miles averaging 25mph the reality for much of the year is more like 200 miles spread over 20+ journeys each one with a cold start.

 

[ACarneiro]

You are on the UK forum where temperatures are a little colder than they are in Florida. Around town generally means a series of short journeys each one, for about 9 months of the year, comes with a significant startup penalty so while i agree that I could probably drive around town in circles for 350miles averaging 25mph the reality for much of the year is more like 200 miles spread over 20+ journeys each one with a cold start.

AH, hadn't noticed.
Very different temperatures between Shrewsbury and Tallahassee...
(Although I find the "rain days" a tad hard to believe...)

 

[WannabeOwner]

400-450 miles in the real world and that, I suspect, would appeal to a far greater number of people and use cases.

400 - 450 miles at 70 (if you manage that ) is 5.75 - hours 6.5 hours. Driver is going to be cream-crackered after that!

will only do 250 in those actual conditions. That's just about a 3 hour drive from full to empty. That's not enough.

I think 3 hours for a "leg" is a sensible maximum, that's the point at which we used to do "swap drivers" in ICE. But, as I have since found, a 20 minute break at that point makes a huge difference to arrival state

But the reality is that there won't be a Supercharger at just that location When we drive to France (and the MS has very nearly a 300 mile range (100%-0%) at 130 KPH and rarely is there traffic in France) our stops are between 1.5 hours and 2.5 hours based on where there are Superchargers. Its 3 additional, 20 minute, stops on what was a 12 hour door-to-door journey in ICE. IME we arrive in far better condition than ever we did when we did "just swap drivers and press on"

 

[LiamPope]

It would have been factored into the review that I am talking about.

Apparently 700 bar compressed gas is the thing rather than low pressure but cryogenic liquid that BMW tried. Thanks google. But either way, you talk of a quantitative analysis that came up with a crossover point where the economics of hydrogen beat out battery. I'm sure they factored in everything quantifiable, down to weight of tanks, maintenance cost estimates, etc, etc, but I'm talking about fundamentally unquantifiable considerations such as the engineering and safety concerns of 700 bar gas tanks and associated plumbing systems being in passenger cars. Those are big deals and probably can't have had any numbers assigned and had any impact on that crossover point. included as discussion points at best I would guess.

I just have a hard time imagining a world where every passenger car, abused, 20+years old, has a high pressure gas tank and system like that! That's not to say thin tanks of liquid petrol/diesel or huge lithium batteries are without risk! So maybe it will be done and hydrogen win out even for small passenger cars?

 

[ACarneiro]

Apparently 700 bar compressed gas is the thing rather than low pressure but cryogenic liquid that BMW tried. Thanks google. But either way, you talk of a quantitative analysis that came up with a crossover point where the economics of hydrogen beat out battery. I'm sure they factored in everything quantifiable, down to weight of tanks, maintenance cost estimates, etc, etc, but I'm talking about fundamentally unquantifiable considerations such as the engineering and safety concerns of 700 bar gas tanks and associated plumbing systems being in passenger cars. Those are big deals and probably can't have had any numbers assigned and had any impact on that crossover point. included as discussion points at best I would guess.

I just have a hard time imagining a world where every passenger car, abused, 20+years old, has a high pressure gas tank and system like that! That's not to say thin tanks of liquid petrol/diesel or huge lithium batteries are without risk! So maybe it will be done and hydrogen win out even for small passenger cars?

There has famously been at least one incident where it became very clear that hydrogen and mass transit can be a rather tricky combination...
(Tongue firmly in cheek, I appreciate technology and knowledge have evolved a bit since 1937)

 

[Zilla91]

As for wanting to drive more than 4 hours without stopping, that's an individual matter and you can speak for yourself on that. No thanks for me.

You're conflating two different things. Just because one tank of petrol means you can drive 4 hours non-stop it doesn't mean you have to.

A car with more range means you can complete a long journey without having to rely on public charging which costs about 6/7 times more than what it costs to charge at home.

With a petrol car I would fill up at the local petrol station and drive to my destination without ever stopping at a service station just to fill up and having to pay a hefty premium. It would be great if you could do that with an EV.

 

[MrBadger]

Apparently 700 bar compressed gas is the thing rather than low pressure but cryogenic liquid that BMW tried. Thanks google. But either way, you talk of a quantitative analysis that came up with a crossover point where the economics of hydrogen beat out battery. I'm sure they factored in everything quantifiable, down to weight of tanks, maintenance cost estimates, etc, etc, but I'm talking about fundamentally unquantifiable considerations such as the engineering and safety concerns of 700 bar gas tanks and associated plumbing systems being in passenger cars. Those are big deals and probably can't have had any numbers assigned and had any impact on that crossover point. included as discussion points at best I would guess.

They wouldn’t have needed google. They would have ability to crash test these sorts of things if needed (lots of things they would have crash tested that many of us will have relied on) and experts in the field and peer reviewed by other experts in the field and published in science journeys for others to peer review. Not just some schoolboy calculation. But also never said it was an exact number and is probably 8 years or so out of date. World has moved on.

 

[qwickshot]

There is one use case that needs more battery power: towing. That’s it, just towing.

My 60kwh 3 will do 3.5-4 hours of real world driving in normal U.K. traffic. An LR will do 4+. Model Y is closer to 3 and 3.5 respectively.

Stick a caravan on the back of a Model Y and it’s down to 1.5-2 hours and 2-2.5 hours driving at a lower speed.

Outside of that, the existing cars cover the overwhelming majority of use cases within their existing ranges. Even if you do go out of range, you get a lot of public charging for the few £k it could cost to have a bigger battery.

Outside of towing we are already hitting diminishing returns in terms of range and how much benefit having more actually gives. There are also two ways in increasing range, the other is efficiency, let’s not lose sight of that.

The long range RWD model 3 that seems to be doing the rounds at the moment is a really good compromise of range and performance.

 

[Jason71]

AH, hadn't noticed.
Very different temperatures between Shrewsbury and Tallahassee...
(Although I find the "rain days" a tad hard to believe...)

When someone says something with total confidence that appears to make no sense at all (in context) the first thing I do is check if they are from the US

 

[Jason71]

There is one use case that needs more battery power: towing. That’s it, just towing.

My 60kwh 3 will do 3.5-4 hours of real world driving in normal U.K. traffic. An LR will do 4+. Model Y is closer to 3 and 3.5 respectively.

Stick a caravan on the back of a Model Y and it’s down to 1.5-2 hours and 2-2.5 hours driving at a lower speed.

Outside of that, the existing cars cover the overwhelming majority of use cases within their existing ranges. Even if you do go out of range, you get a lot of public charging for the few £k it could cost to have a bigger battery.

Outside of towing we are already hitting diminishing returns in terms of range and how much benefit having more actually gives. There are also two ways in increasing range, the other is efficiency, let’s not lose sight of that.

The long range RWD model 3 that seems to be doing the rounds at the moment is a really good compromise of range and performance.

and good luck showing up a Tebay supercharger on a bank holiday weekend with a caravan

 

[GRiLLA]

I beg to differ. I've had my M3 since 2019 so I am not a newbie and at nearly 80.000 miles I think I can consider myself experienced enough.
As the vast majority of my driving is on motorway, I get a realistic 200 miles out of my battery in the winter, possibly up to 230 in the summer. I have no range anxiety, I plan and can do the journeys I need to do (even the longer ones) with a minimum of fuss.
My use case appears to not be the same as yours, and my M3 almost perfectly suits my needs...... but not quite
I still would prefer to have the option of buying a car with a real range of 400 miles.

But you have a P- which I assume will be from 2019, and it was always a bit of an outlier in terms of range vs WLTP. I'll assume you are suggesting it had a WLTP figure of 325 miles (?), so you are getting 200/325 = 62%

My 2022 LR Model 3 regularly does 175 miles on 55% (distance to take child to/from university, 100% motorway speeds). Temperature makes little difference (rain etc clearly does). So I'm getting 318 miles on a full charge, the advertised WLTP figure was 389 so 82%.

My 2019 LR would be averaging 286 Wh/mile, the new one is about 240Wh/mile,

The difference between real world and WLTP range is far closer with newer cars.

 

[ACarneiro]

But you have a P- which I assume will be from 2019, and it was always a bit of an outlier in terms of range vs WLTP. I'll assume you are suggesting it had a WLTP figure of 325 miles (?), so you are getting 200/325 = 62%

My 2022 LR Model 3 regularly does 175 miles on 55% (distance to take child to/from university, 100% motorway speeds). Temperature makes little difference (rain etc clearly does). So I'm getting 318 miles on a full charge, the advertised WLTP figure was 389 so 82%.

My 2019 LR would be averaging 286 Wh/mile, the new one is about 240Wh/mile,

The difference between real world and WLTP range is far closer with newer cars.

I think the quoted range (not sure if EPA or WLTP but I assume the latter) was just shy of 300. 290, possibly? Still getting about 66% of what's quoted so that's not too bad.
But I'm sticking to my 400-mile-real-range-would-be-better guns

 

[94jdh]

But you have a P- which I assume will be from 2019, and it was always a bit of an outlier in terms of range vs WLTP. I'll assume you are suggesting it had a WLTP figure of 325 miles (?), so you are getting 200/325 = 62%

My 2022 LR Model 3 regularly does 175 miles on 55% (distance to take child to/from university, 100% motorway speeds). Temperature makes little difference (rain etc clearly does). So I'm getting 318 miles on a full charge, the advertised WLTP figure was 389 so 82%.

My 2019 LR would be averaging 286 Wh/mile, the new one is about 240Wh/mile,

The difference between real world and WLTP range is far closer with newer cars.

My lifetime average for my previous model 3 performance was around 326Wh/mile (over 3 years and 63,000 miles)