-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
For the Model C I think it will be a bit longer in wheel base and length. It needs 0-60 times of at least 4.5- 5.5. It needs a max range of 300 miles (for me anyway). Top speed needs to be in the 155mph range on the sport version. It will need to come in 3 variants sedan/ coupe and convertible with a sport option on all 3. And it needs to start at about $35,000 not including the $7,500 rebate which would mean they could advertise starting at $27,500 if they wanted. I think a loaded sport version could easily be in the $75-$85K range. Attached are the dimensions of the BMW just for reference.
Attachments
Thanks a lot for your input, Kevin, and everybody else.
Many forum contributions went into the compilation of this bluestar data sheet. I made up a few numbers to make it look plausible but apparently it is impossible to please every one. Below follows a compilation of counter proposals that actually where backed up by data, argumentation, or other references.
AWD and sport options for all models surely is in discussion but it would blow up the table. Perhaps I list them as separate options?
The 3 door strategy is a common approach in EU market for entry level models with upgrade option for 5 doors. But it was very badly received here. Everybody wants a 5 door hatchback, no one sees the possibility to save a few grand here. OK. Ditched.
I suggest to discuss pricing after a consensus on other properties has emerged. E.g. shaving off 1s of 0-60 times will allow to sell the sport variant for $10k more in US market. In Europe, no one gives a cr*p on 0-60 for a family sedan with the exception of motor journalists and top gear fans :tongue:
Dimensions
Thanks to Kevin for supplying the BMW 3 series dimensions. Franz von Holzhausen has stated that the Model S has to look like a conventional sedan. With bluestar, Tesla can start to explore more of the freedom that an electric drive train allows. There is no need for an excessive 8cu ft frunk to make it look like a front ICE vehicle. richkae pointed out that more vehicle back length can benefit aerodynamics. Thus I suggest to start from the exterior dimensions of the BMW 3, move the cabin forward, and stretch the wheel base. Anyone willing to provide some artwork?
so: wheel base: BMW3: 108, Model S: 116, Model C+R 104->112. Will fiddle with the rest.
Battery and Drive Train Specifications
Now this is where the battle is won or lost. Don't tell me you want 300 miles. Everybody wants 300 until he sees the penalty for that. Please provide a reasonable suggestion on which sweet spot Tesla must aim to make bluestar a success. Constraints are price, weight, availability of higher capacity cells, maximum charge and discharge power, resulting in 0-60 time and curb weight. Please solve for x.
No one commented on the cell sizes I listed, so these look ok.
Thanks for comparing pack capacity and curb weight with Roadster data. This should be a valid data point to adjust estimations.
I liked the comment that Model C variants don't need >200kW peak power. I will combine that with the idea to describe performance models as a separate option.
Charging options
Thanks to jkirkebo for pointing out the CHAdeMO option price for the LEAF. Will change $4,500 to $700, accordingly. Tesla will get called names if they try to introduce a price penalty for a charging standard that they see in competition with their own proposal. :biggrin:
Stay tuned for updates!
Vehicle Size and dimensions
Many forum contributions went into the compilation of this bluestar data sheet. I made up a few numbers to make it look plausible but apparently it is impossible to please every one. Below follows a compilation of counter proposals that actually where backed up by data, argumentation, or other references.
I picked the Roadster as a premium price-able vehicle for the introduction of the bluestar platform, with the sedan as the follow-up to tap into that rather large market segment. If you want to discuss a coupe or a convertible, you should find a good reason why Tesla would want to do these before a sedan class vehicle and why they should follow immediately after a convertible based on the skateboard (Model S) platform.
AWD and sport options for all models surely is in discussion but it would blow up the table. Perhaps I list them as separate options?
The 3 door strategy is a common approach in EU market for entry level models with upgrade option for 5 doors. But it was very badly received here. Everybody wants a 5 door hatchback, no one sees the possibility to save a few grand here. OK. Ditched.
I suggest to discuss pricing after a consensus on other properties has emerged. E.g. shaving off 1s of 0-60 times will allow to sell the sport variant for $10k more in US market. In Europe, no one gives a cr*p on 0-60 for a family sedan with the exception of motor journalists and top gear fans :tongue:
Dimensions
Thanks to Kevin for supplying the BMW 3 series dimensions. Franz von Holzhausen has stated that the Model S has to look like a conventional sedan. With bluestar, Tesla can start to explore more of the freedom that an electric drive train allows. There is no need for an excessive 8cu ft frunk to make it look like a front ICE vehicle. richkae pointed out that more vehicle back length can benefit aerodynamics. Thus I suggest to start from the exterior dimensions of the BMW 3, move the cabin forward, and stretch the wheel base. Anyone willing to provide some artwork?
so: wheel base: BMW3: 108, Model S: 116, Model C+R 104->112. Will fiddle with the rest.
Battery and Drive Train Specifications
Now this is where the battle is won or lost. Don't tell me you want 300 miles. Everybody wants 300 until he sees the penalty for that. Please provide a reasonable suggestion on which sweet spot Tesla must aim to make bluestar a success. Constraints are price, weight, availability of higher capacity cells, maximum charge and discharge power, resulting in 0-60 time and curb weight. Please solve for x.
No one commented on the cell sizes I listed, so these look ok.
Thanks for comparing pack capacity and curb weight with Roadster data. This should be a valid data point to adjust estimations.
I liked the comment that Model C variants don't need >200kW peak power. I will combine that with the idea to describe performance models as a separate option.
Charging options
Thanks to jkirkebo for pointing out the CHAdeMO option price for the LEAF. Will change $4,500 to $700, accordingly. Tesla will get called names if they try to introduce a price penalty for a charging standard that they see in competition with their own proposal. :biggrin:
Stay tuned for updates!
Vehicle Size and dimensions
The term "Bluestar" is ours. (I like to take credit for making that name up (Galaxina reference)) If you talk with Tesla people and mention"Bluestar" without putting it onto context, many have no idea what you are talking about.
There will likely be yet another S platform car before we see the smaller skateboard.
There will likely be yet another S platform car before we see the smaller skateboard.
The best way to reduce cost of the Model C is to improve the Wh/mile. That needs to be foremost in design goals.
1. Improve aerodynamics by reducing cross section ( width and height ) making for a smaller car.
2. Improve aerodynamics by not using ridiculous giant wheels and giant wheel wells. This has the additional advantages of reducing weight and improving interior space.
3. Improve rolling resistance by not using ridiculous giant wheels.
4. Reduce mass. Once you're all aluminum, you have to make the car smaller. This may conflict with point 1 because a short tall car may have less mass, but worse aerodynamics.
I'm harping on the giant wheels, because I think they are one of the worst features of the Model S in terms of efficiency - although everyone seems to agree they look good.
If you build the car around smaller wheels then you can pack a lot of space into an 108 or less inch wheelbase.
1. Improve aerodynamics by reducing cross section ( width and height ) making for a smaller car.
2. Improve aerodynamics by not using ridiculous giant wheels and giant wheel wells. This has the additional advantages of reducing weight and improving interior space.
3. Improve rolling resistance by not using ridiculous giant wheels.
4. Reduce mass. Once you're all aluminum, you have to make the car smaller. This may conflict with point 1 because a short tall car may have less mass, but worse aerodynamics.
I'm harping on the giant wheels, because I think they are one of the worst features of the Model S in terms of efficiency - although everyone seems to agree they look good.
If you build the car around smaller wheels then you can pack a lot of space into an 108 or less inch wheelbase.
How many luxury cars have small dinky wheels though? They did it right by making the car attractive first, EV second.
I didn't say they made the wrong choice for the Model S, just that it has a negative impact on efficiency.
If you reduce the wheelbase of the Model S from 116 to 108 and reduce the track ( width ) about 6 inches from 66 to 60 you have reduced the footprint available to the battery by about 18-20%
However if you reduce the wheel openings down from fitting 21s to 15s you actually get some of the space inside the wheelbase back - so maybe your battery box is only 15% smaller.
If you can improve the Wh/mile of the car by 15% then you can have a 300 mile range car with a 72kWh battery ( 15% smaller than 85kWh ).
Although I'm not saying that 300 mile range should necessarily be offered on the Model C.
However if you reduce the wheel openings down from fitting 21s to 15s you actually get some of the space inside the wheelbase back - so maybe your battery box is only 15% smaller.
If you can improve the Wh/mile of the car by 15% then you can have a 300 mile range car with a 72kWh battery ( 15% smaller than 85kWh ).
Although I'm not saying that 300 mile range should necessarily be offered on the Model C.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Also, even the cells used in the MODEL S, 85 kWh version, leave some space in the pack.
One note about the wheel size. As an avid cyclist there is an absurd amount of aerodynamic data on wheel size. In general smaller wheels do NOT equate to less drag, but more. This is because the linear velocity is the same on both wheels, and because the wheel actually turns over more (more RPMs) and churns up more air. Granted on a wheel shrouded vehicle this is a different case. And the larger the wheel well the worse aerodynamics you will be seeing.
Granted the Model S does have ridiculous giant wheels. I thought the 18" wheels on my GTI were stupid big. I downgraded to the 17" ones and have saved thousands on replacement tires (they only seem to make it ~25,000km)!
We have talked before about "stacking" two battery packs for more range.
If you look at the briefcase sized lump at the rear (right) of the battery pack here.
That is a space that contains more batteries. The engineer at Freemont said they had some extra space so they took it.
Same could be done for the next platform.
If you look at the briefcase sized lump at the rear (right) of the battery pack here.
That is a space that contains more batteries. The engineer at Freemont said they had some extra space so they took it.
Same could be done for the next platform.
ManuVince
Member
I would go for a nice compromise like the Audi A3 SportBack. A little longer than the VW Golf, so offering more boot space. Not the most sexy for sure, but the best compromise between a small hatch and a sedan. And it would look very nice and sporty with 17" wheels.
For a 101" wheel base, with the Tesla skate board chassis, you can get much more space than what Audi gets. With a body inspired by the Model S that would be a really hot hatch !
For a 101" wheel base, with the Tesla skate board chassis, you can get much more space than what Audi gets. With a body inspired by the Model S that would be a really hot hatch !
Don't know if Ford still has the trademark but found this
E-Commerce News: News: What Lies Beneath the Web Trademark Cases?
Ford also used to have a Model S but I guess Tesla was able to trademark that somehow (or use the name) since it was well over 100 years ago.
E-Commerce News: News: What Lies Beneath the Web Trademark Cases?
Ford also used to have a Model S but I guess Tesla was able to trademark that somehow (or use the name) since it was well over 100 years ago.
Touch Screen will stay 17"
1. There is very little to no financial advantages to use a smaller screen compared to the system costs of the car.
2. The Tesla OS is optimised for 17". A smaller screen would mean for Tesla to maintain several different layouts of pretty much the whole OS, otherwise buttons would be too small to use easily. There is a reason Apple kept the iphone's screen size fixed for 5 years. Tesla will try to use as many synergies as possible, not to reduce these. Keep in mind that they are planning to keep the software current for years to come.
3. Reducing the screen size will probably necessitate more physical buttons. Basing a system around non-touch controls also reduces the upgradability of the OS greatly. Teslas design language tries to remove as much clutter as possible. There are only two physical buttons on the dashboard. However, they are in talks with Google to use their voice recognition software, which would reduce the need for physical buttons.
4. Pretty much all reviews of the Model S praise the large touchscreen. This is one of the features of the car that seems to shout paradigm shift the loudest. Tesla is a very forward thinking company and won't want to implement "yesterdays" technology (read: the way it has been done in the last 50 years.)
5. It is unlikely that a smaller screen will make it easier to use. Conversly, if the feedback from Tesla users points to difficulty of use, it would argue for an even larger screen. However, since the screen is already occupying most of the available space, that is probably also unlikely.
6. It is easy to differentiate between high and low cost interiors by using screens of different qualities, i.e. resolution, viewing angles, colour representation, OLEDs etc. (retina mac book pro vs original mac book pro, retina ipad 4 vs ipad 2)
1. There is very little to no financial advantages to use a smaller screen compared to the system costs of the car.
2. The Tesla OS is optimised for 17". A smaller screen would mean for Tesla to maintain several different layouts of pretty much the whole OS, otherwise buttons would be too small to use easily. There is a reason Apple kept the iphone's screen size fixed for 5 years. Tesla will try to use as many synergies as possible, not to reduce these. Keep in mind that they are planning to keep the software current for years to come.
3. Reducing the screen size will probably necessitate more physical buttons. Basing a system around non-touch controls also reduces the upgradability of the OS greatly. Teslas design language tries to remove as much clutter as possible. There are only two physical buttons on the dashboard. However, they are in talks with Google to use their voice recognition software, which would reduce the need for physical buttons.
4. Pretty much all reviews of the Model S praise the large touchscreen. This is one of the features of the car that seems to shout paradigm shift the loudest. Tesla is a very forward thinking company and won't want to implement "yesterdays" technology (read: the way it has been done in the last 50 years.)
5. It is unlikely that a smaller screen will make it easier to use. Conversly, if the feedback from Tesla users points to difficulty of use, it would argue for an even larger screen. However, since the screen is already occupying most of the available space, that is probably also unlikely.
6. It is easy to differentiate between high and low cost interiors by using screens of different qualities, i.e. resolution, viewing angles, colour representation, OLEDs etc. (retina mac book pro vs original mac book pro, retina ipad 4 vs ipad 2)
I don't expect that feedback. My only real complaint about the screen so far is that I want an easy way (button in the climate control block would be great) to turn the 17 into screensaver / black mode at night. Similarly, I've sometimes put the left and right sides of the dash screen to "Empty" to mute it down as well when driving at night.
Vger
Active Member
I don't know what the pixel pitch is on the current screen, but Tesla could consider reducing the physical size of the panel without reducing the pixel count. This is what Apple cleverly did with the iPad Mini. A smaller physical size might really make sense in a considerably smaller cabin, especially in a new-generation Roadster or possible smaller coupe model. Elon has said that the size template for even the Gen III sedan is the BMW 3 or Audi A4. Thinking about those cabins, a 17" screen would be quite out of proportion. Perhaps a 14" or 15" screen with equal pixel count would make more sense.
Similar threads
