-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sunlight
Member
OK if we go back to the beginning now and revisit roow110's post. Although there were some positive comments about the proposed M3 design, some felt it was too 'compact/sub-compact' and/or SUV-ish for the M3.
If we have been following the thread the consensus seems to be that the M3 should have a longer w/b than the BMW 3-series but shorter than the MS - so about 114". Overall length similar to the BMW 3-series - possibly a bit shorter to make it easier to manage but still bigger inside.
Height around a couple of inches greater than the MS - say mid-way between average sedan and lower SUV's - 58"?
If we fiddle with roow110's picture (rather badly with a print and pen...) to incorporate these facts we end up with something like:-
which I quite like..............The wheels are TOO big (about 23"..!) but that can be rectified.
Maybe roow110 could do a decent picture along these lines?
If we have been following the thread the consensus seems to be that the M3 should have a longer w/b than the BMW 3-series but shorter than the MS - so about 114". Overall length similar to the BMW 3-series - possibly a bit shorter to make it easier to manage but still bigger inside.
Height around a couple of inches greater than the MS - say mid-way between average sedan and lower SUV's - 58"?
If we fiddle with roow110's picture (rather badly with a print and pen...) to incorporate these facts we end up with something like:-
which I quite like..............The wheels are TOO big (about 23"..!) but that can be rectified.
Maybe roow110 could do a decent picture along these lines?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
How about seats a couple of inches lower instead, and keep the roof low? These seats could be thinner and mounted lower:
Or for those who really need the rear seat headroom there could be this option
Sunlight
Member
Are we going for family/general or sporty/image?
BMW or mainstream market? Alright BMW is now mainstream I know......
I just feel that the 2" will have minimal impact on the overall looks (and none on CoG) but will benefit daily use forever.
BMW or mainstream market? Alright BMW is now mainstream I know......
I just feel that the 2" will have minimal impact on the overall looks (and none on CoG) but will benefit daily use forever.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Lower seat = lower utility/compatibility.
My wife even refused to sit in a Volt. But, even my 80 year old mother-in-law finds it easy to get in/out of Leaf. I think this is the reason mainstream sedans now have higher seats than a generation or two back.
Infact, if the seats are too low, it would be a deal breaker for me.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I want to sit in a comfortable position in a four door sedan model 3d with the largest battery pack for for traveling out west for the winter and traveling back and forth to the cabin from the twin cities in the summer with the most range I can get. If anybody wants to sit on the floor get a sports car or wait for the roadster.
Sunlight
Member
Thanks roow110 - nice job. Looks like a MS derivative (which is what most people seem to want)
Personally I'd like to see a slightly higher and flatter rear deck - more practical internal shape and I prefer the looks/balance. I now find the 'fall-away' fast back look a bit dated and limiting.
Even with this format the final version could have a different style with amended detailing; lights; creases; trim etc. But I prefer a timeless look and not too much concession given to current trends which can date so quickly.
vortex - let's see a contribution from you that is practical; workable and 'beautiful' in your opinion.....That's a pretty broad damnation!
RobStark - it would be very interesting to see which version sold better if the sole difference was the 'height' but I suspect Tesla would make them quite different so they didn't feed off each other.
Personally I'd like to see a slightly higher and flatter rear deck - more practical internal shape and I prefer the looks/balance. I now find the 'fall-away' fast back look a bit dated and limiting.
Even with this format the final version could have a different style with amended detailing; lights; creases; trim etc. But I prefer a timeless look and not too much concession given to current trends which can date so quickly.
vortex - let's see a contribution from you that is practical; workable and 'beautiful' in your opinion.....That's a pretty broad damnation!
RobStark - it would be very interesting to see which version sold better if the sole difference was the 'height' but I suspect Tesla would make them quite different so they didn't feed off each other.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
What are the chances that Tesla will produce both the sedan/hatch and the CUV versions in '17 ? Or even the CUV version first ? They have said they are designing them together.
bigbear
Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
So you'd probably appreciate a good aerodynamic design that optimizes range and doesn't stick up into the wind more than it needs to.
And if anyone wants to sit up high they can wait for the CUV version of the 3. Frankly I don't think the front seats need to be lowered that much to get the required headroom with a low roof, but it is one way to address the rear seat headroom issue without raising up the roof line.
Sunlight
Member
JRP3 - most people have legs so it isn't only headroom. As the seats go down so the legs go out (with most bodies). If the seats are lower then there is also less space under the front seats to stuff your legs.
Hence the advantage of a longer wheelbase (as well as more battery space; especially if the M3 is appreciably narrower than the MS).
But giving more legroom at the rear now intrudes into rear storage space so the car may have to longer than intended. It ain't a simple 'Drop the seats to give headroom'.....
Also it is far more awkward extracting oneself from a car with your legs out in front rather than under - just watch F1 drivers crawling out!!!
do we want to limit the 'normal' M3 to the young and agile? To this end Tesla could be wise to
release the CUV/SUV version concurrently with the sedan (as long as they share most components and basic styling) so that both the practical and the sporty are serviced and no one walks away from a Tesla M3 because 'I can't get in and out easily.....'/'Oh it isn't sporty enough for me!' (Delete as applicable)
Hence the advantage of a longer wheelbase (as well as more battery space; especially if the M3 is appreciably narrower than the MS).
But giving more legroom at the rear now intrudes into rear storage space so the car may have to longer than intended. It ain't a simple 'Drop the seats to give headroom'.....
Also it is far more awkward extracting oneself from a car with your legs out in front rather than under - just watch F1 drivers crawling out!!!
do we want to limit the 'normal' M3 to the young and agile? To this end Tesla could be wise to
release the CUV/SUV version concurrently with the sedan (as long as they share most components and basic styling) so that both the practical and the sporty are serviced and no one walks away from a Tesla M3 because 'I can't get in and out easily.....'/'Oh it isn't sporty enough for me!' (Delete as applicable)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
We are only talking about 2 inches at most, I think the difficulty of getting in and out is being exaggerated. Also, a lower seat doesn't necessarily mean a longer vehicle, it just means rear seat passengers have their knees closer to their ears :wink:
Sunlight
Member
I have never spent time in a MS (quick test drive; showroom) but the consensus seems to be that the MS is too tight and some have had to get the pano roof to feel OK with the headroom.
Presumably Tesla decided against dropping the seats further to solve this so they must feel this is as low as it should go and be workable for most people.
Therefore one would conclude (would one not?) that a mass appeal family EV with a skateboard needs to have slightly more headroom - so this means a marginally raised roofline.
QED....
I think folks are getting anal and over-obsessed with the 'drag' and 'frumpy' looks this may cause. If 2" (or whatever) makes the car work so much better for so many more people surely it isn't a deal-breaker? If the design is good (and it will be) then you'd not even notice this until it was parked right next to a MS/BMW 3-series/Audi on level ground and then so what? It'll kick them into touch on every other score.
"Nah I didn't get the Tesla as it was nearly 2" taller than I like...."
Presumably Tesla decided against dropping the seats further to solve this so they must feel this is as low as it should go and be workable for most people.
Therefore one would conclude (would one not?) that a mass appeal family EV with a skateboard needs to have slightly more headroom - so this means a marginally raised roofline.
QED....
I think folks are getting anal and over-obsessed with the 'drag' and 'frumpy' looks this may cause. If 2" (or whatever) makes the car work so much better for so many more people surely it isn't a deal-breaker? If the design is good (and it will be) then you'd not even notice this until it was parked right next to a MS/BMW 3-series/Audi on level ground and then so what? It'll kick them into touch on every other score.
"Nah I didn't get the Tesla as it was nearly 2" taller than I like...."
Actually the Model S was meant to be Tesla's family sedan. The headroom is slightly tight in the back, and not at all in the front. Worse than some 4 door sedans, better than others. I think people expected more headroom in such a large car, but it seems like a normal amount of headroom for a smaller 3 series type car.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The consensus is rear headroom is tight. The front people seem to be okay except for those that are really tall. For the rear it is obvious the culprit is the slope of the roof. Where people's heads are supposed to be, the roof slopes down. In a traditional sedan style, there would be a kink before the rear window slopes down, which allows for acceptable rear headroom. Very obviously, I am advocating to have that same kink in the Model 3.
Look at how the 3 series (56.3") and 3 series GT (59.4") looks like (3 inch difference). Model S is 56.5". The 3 series GT sells considerably worse and definitely errs on the ugly side of the spectrum. The issue is that the Model 3 will be a shorter car and less wide, so a taller body than the S will make proportions look worse (even keeping the same height already does this, much less making it taller).
I think probably an inch (57.5") is still acceptable. Although it'll be taller than all the premium sedans in the same segment (which are all around the same as the 3 series), the economy versions like Mazda 3 and Corolla are within this range.
