UNOFFICIAL: Bluestar Pricing and Options

[vfx]

..Tesla could consider reducing the physical size of the panel without reducing the pixel count. ....

But it's not about resolution it's finding and reaching out to touch the size of the current screen buttons. If my microwave had small buttons it would not get and better.

- - - Updated - - -

1. There is very little to no financial advantages to use a smaller screen compared to the system costs of the car.,2.3.4.5.6...

And the cost of making a dash with buttons is astronomical. Not like the 50's (or the Roadster!) when they use could order a "sliver knurled knob number 6 with a black hash mark' by the 10,000 for the dash. Now dashboards are sculpted shapes with button layout to fit contours and fit is a space space with a certain feel and task (on off, hold to scan, joystick, etc., With Tesla's screen all this is done. The Model S it's done The Model it's done. Any car beyond, it's all been done. And it's upgradable. Even after the car is delivered they are adding buttons with new features!! Freakin Awesome.

 

[ElSupreme]

1. There is very little to no financial advantages to use a smaller screen compared to the system costs of the car.

And the cost of making a dash with buttons is astronomical.

Exactly I think using the 17" display in the Model S was probably about the same cost as making a 'button happy' dash. There is increased equipment cost, but the setup cost is much much less. With every Model after the S I think putting in a massive touch screen will be cheaper than developing a new dash.

In 5 years I expect this to be the norm on ALL new cars, with some having it as soon as 3 years. 12" screen or bigger and a 70-90% less buttons. It takes that long for the automotive industry to move.

 

[spatterso911]

Tesla could easily cut the screen size in half, without changing the pixel size or resolution. A software button could swap screens, so that instead of having 2 half screens like the Model S (which can swap position), you'd have one, losing only the ability to have a giant full screen view of one screen. Totally doable. The iPad mini idea is very doable as well.

 

[gjunky]

I would keep the 17" screen and perhaps go OLED by that time. The screen makes such a statement and it will be nice to see it carried forward. Having two separate segments visible at the same time is a huge plus on the Model S. If they can make the mount strong enough it would be nice to have a way to tilt it towards the driver or passenger just a little.
Also, Range Rover uses a screen that can display different content for the driver and the passenger at the same time. Not sure if they are touch screens but that would be awesome as the passenger could browse the internet on a trip and all the controls would still be visible and accessible to the driver. Again, not sure if this is possible with a touch screen and how it would determine control but then again this is Tesla

 

[vfx]

+1 on OLED!

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

I expect -- and hope -- that Tesla is being very accurate when they talk about competing with the BMW 3-series. Having a sedan, coupe, and convertible all built around the same chassis and drivetrain, offering four seats and a reasonable amount of space, for $30K to $60K (after tax credit) is BMW's bread and butter. Those cars sell like hotcakes... and I still miss my 335 convertible.

The Gen-3 car MUST have a four-door (or five-door) option... that's the standard model to generate the most sales. Coupe and convertible alternatives will broaden the appeal of the platform to different buyers and create more potential customers while maintaining very high parts commonality. Having two -- or ideally three -- battery capacities available would make this car sell extremely well. Other things that would be very welcome IMHO are the Performance option, an AWD option with dual motors, and an AWD Performance option. Tires should likely be 15" with an option for 16"... but go with whatever the market wants as long as the Performance version can get some really good rubber to maintain best-in-class handling. All of those -- sedan, coupe, and convertible -- can be part of the same "Model C" or whatever they choose to call it. Easy to say you got a "C sedan" or a "C convertible".

For my own personal car, I'd like the "C convertible" with four seats and good trunk space. I'd get the AWD Performance version, which hopefully would outrun the Model S by a little bit.

As I noted recently on another thread, I would also create a supercar "Model R" based on the same small chassis. Make it also AWD with two motors from the Performance S, and you have 830 HP and an unholy 890 lb-ft of torque. Two-seat, drop-dead-gorgeous body that'll attract as much attention as the Roadster currently does (I've had Lamborghini drivers stop to stare... ), use the largest battery available on that chassis as standard, and Tesla has a new flagship they can sell for $100K.

With the Model S and Model X sharing one chassis, and the Model C and Model R sharing another, Tesla will have a very attractive and functional product line. Other vehicles are possible, but I'd sure start with those.

 

[Teslawisher]

As I noted recently on another thread, I would also create a supercar "Model R" based on the same small chassis. Make it also AWD with two motors from the Performance S, and you have 830 HP and an unholy 890 lb-ft of torque. Two-seat, drop-dead-gorgeous body that'll attract as much attention as the Roadster currently does (I've had Lamborghini drivers stop to stare... ), use the largest battery available on that chassis as standard, and Tesla has a new flagship they can sell for $100K.

ZR-1 killer.

 

[gjunky]

The Gen-3 car MUST have a four-door (or five-door) option... that's the standard model to generate the most sales. Coupe and convertible alternatives will broaden the appeal of the platform to different buyers and create more potential customers while maintaining very high parts commonality. Having two -- or ideally three -- battery capacities available would make this car sell extremely well. Other things that would be very welcome IMHO are the Performance option, an AWD option with dual motors, and an AWD Performance option. Tires should likely be 15" with an option for 16"... but go with whatever the market wants as long as the Performance version can get some really good rubber to maintain best-in-class handling. All of those -- sedan, coupe, and convertible -- can be part of the same "Model C" or whatever they choose to call it. Easy to say you got a "C sedan" or a "C convertible".

That is already a lot of variations but I would like to add a wagon to this. I know, not too popular here in the US but very practical when well done. I am thinking something like the Jetta Wagon or Audi A4 Avant which just made me think of an Audi Allroad type version with additional ground clearance :biggrin:

 

[marcon]

Bluestar Platform - UNOFFICIAL Options and Prices

Thanks for the great work of collecting all those tidbits.

Tesla could easily cut the screen size in half, without changing the pixel size or resolution. A software button could swap screens, so that instead of having 2 half screens like the Model S (which can swap position), you'd have one, losing only the ability to have a giant full screen view of one screen. Totally doable. The iPad mini idea is very doable as well.

That is true. It wouldn't be quite half the size, since you'd need the climate control and the menu bar at the top always visible. It would reduce the usability somewhat, but should be implemetable from the current software with little effort. It would still probably make sense only, if there was a very strong space constraint.

The Gen-3 car MUST have a four-door (or five-door) option... that's the standard model to generate the most sales.

Totally agree.

Coupe and convertible alternatives will broaden the appeal of the platform to different buyers and create more potential customers while maintaining very high parts commonality.

That is already a lot of variations but I would like to add a wagon to this. I know, not too popular here in the US but very practical when well done.

That sounds like strong synergies. I think it will take some time to flesh out their portfolio, but I agree that a multitude of variations will be very beneficial for a global market. Wagons for example are very popular in Europe.

As I noted recently on another thread, I would also create a supercar "Model R" based on the same small chassis. Make it also AWD with two motors from the Performance S, and you have 830 HP and an unholy 890 lb-ft of torque.

That is massive torque from 0. (comparison: Bugatti Veyron Standard, 922 lbf·ft, and the 2012 Bugatti Veyron Vitesse, 1,100 lb·ft, @ 3,000-5,000 rpm).

 

[Hache]

Tesla could easily cut the screen size in half,

should be implemetable from the current software with little effort.

Indeed the panels each use about half of the screen, but the options popups and panels use almost full of the 17" screen. You still would have to update all of those options panels. So still a good piece of work. Keeping the 17" would be the cheapest options I think : less development, less compatibility issues.
It would even reduce the cost of the Model S for Tesla, since they would buy the hardware (main screen, tegra 3, tegra 2, driving screen) about 220,000 each year (20,000 for Model S, 200,000 for Gen III).

Makes sence to keep the same hardware as now, for me...

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

I too believe that standardizing on the 17" screen is a better choice for Tesla than using a smaller screen on Gen-3. They will reduce unit costs through volume discounts. They will reduce complexity, parts counts, and inventories since every car will take the same screen. They will reduce development time and cost, not only for the initial release but for every single update that comes later.

But above all, it seems to be a well-demonstrated fact that all reviewers, all magazines, and a huge majority of the buying public lusts after that screen. It really sets Tesla apart from other brands, and that kind of appeal and brand distinction should not be lightly set aside. What Tesla really needs is to sell more cars, not to shave $100 off the parts bill in each car.

 

[brianman]

the options popups and panels use almost full of the 17" screen. You still would have to update all of those options panels. So still a good piece of work.

Or add a scrollbar.

 

[ElSupreme]

What Tesla really needs is to sell more cars, not to shave $100 off the parts bill in each car.

I agree but remember that if they really sell 100,000 a year, and they save $100 per car. You end up with $10,000,000! Saving a few bucks on the cost of the cars equals large amounts on the tail end. On a $50,000 it doesn't seem like $100 is a lot, but at these high production rates they equal real money.\

I do agree making your car appealing and selling a couple hundred extra is better than shaving a few bucks from the parts cost. I generally think you want to make the most appealing car (for a new Model or version change) you can and sell it where you just barely make money then work on reducing costs to where your profits start to roll in. Granted you have to make sure you gain cost reductions as you produce more and more from the beginning.

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

I agree but remember that if they really sell 100,000 a year, and they save $100 per car. You end up with $10,000,000! Saving a few bucks on the cost of the cars equals large amounts on the tail end. On a $50,000 it doesn't seem like $100 is a lot, but at these high production rates they equal real money.

Yes, it's definitely real money. My take is that the $10M in additional parts cost is a worthwhile investment because it might mean that they sell 120,000 instead of 100,000, and are able to make more overall profit than they would have otherwise, also allowing for a greater probability of long-term survival and success. To make a more informed and accurate decision, one needs to be on the inside with a lot more data.

 

[vfx]

While I think they could squeeze the Model S and X 17 inch screen in the Blugenlll the question comes about the coming supercar. That might be a reason to make a 14ish inch screen that would work for both the smaller sized platform cars.

 

[eledille]

Make it also AWD with two motors from the Performance S, and you have 830 HP and an unholy 890 lb-ft of torque.

Adding motors doesn't help when the battery is the bottleneck. MSP strains the battery to the max with its 310 kW, so AWD will provide more traction, but probably not more power.

 

[TEG]

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.

Yeah, +1... If the GenIII is a "3/4 sized Model S", then it make sense to shrink the screen down a bit, but keeping the pixel count the same (by way of more desnse pixel pitch) means that all the software should run the same without having to change anything. Basically the "Tesla 'retina' touchscreen."

- - - Updated - - -

Adding motors doesn't help when the battery is the bottleneck. MSP strains the battery to the max with its 310 kW, so AWD will provide more traction, but probably not more power.

We need ultra-capacitors for short bursts of high C-rate power!

 

[EV_QC]

very interesting article!! Will Tesla Disrupt? - Seeking Alpha

 

[Hache]

Or add a scrollbar.

:crying: Remember the time when some websites were awfully designed for smaller screen, and you had to use the left/right scrollbar to see the full width ? :crying:
I'd rather have 2 option panels than 1 I have to scroll through. :wink:

 

[eledille]

We need ultra-capacitors for short bursts of high C-rate power!

Ouch... expensive...