Model S specs

[TEG]

Official spec sheet here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/Spec_ModelS_US.pdf
& here:
Model S Specs and Standard Features | Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs)

Preliminary info culled from various news stories in 2009:



Price starting around $57,400 (probably reduced by EV rebates and credits)
60-0 braking in ~135 feet
0-60 in less than 6 seconds, 1/4 mile in ~14 seconds
Top speed ~120 MPH (~130?)
Redline: ~14K RPMs (~15K?)
Liquid cooled motor 300kw (402hp)
160 mile range base pack (40kWh, 5500 cells)
230 mile range upgrade (~60kWh, 7800 cells)
300 mile range upgrade (~85kWh, 7800 next generation cells)
curb weight: ~4000 lbs (listed as 3825 lbs some places)
length 196", wheelbase 116.5"
Coefficient of drag: 0.27 (vs 0.35 for the Roadster)
seats 5 with optional rear facing 3rd row for 2 more small children
small front trunk and large rear trunk with 60/40 folding rear seats to carry large items

Options listed here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-50-000-ev-sedan-seats-seven-300-mile-range-0-6/
http://www.scottmoore.is-a-geek.com/blog/index.php/tech/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-revealed
http://ecomodder.com/blog/tesla-model-50000-electric-car-seats/
• Panoramic roof with sliding moon roof
• Retracting door handles for improved aerodynamics
• Full-time 3G connectivity with Internet, HD and satellite radio
• Push button "gear" selector
• Brembo brakes
• Automatic rear lift gate
• 21-inch wheels, Front Tires 245/35ZR21, Rear Tires 285/30ZR21 (Advan Sport)
• 17-inch haptic (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/haptic-technology.htm) touchscreen and customizable vehicle information display
• Fully digital instrument cluster
• LED and neon headlight and taillights, with xenon Hella low beams
• Smart-key power and push button gear selector
• Brembo brake system with new one-piece monobloc calipers and integral stiffening bridge to optimize performance
Front brake system:
• Brembo Gran Turismo
• Brembo 6-piston Monobloc Calipers
• Brembo 405x34mm 2-Piece Floating Slotted Discs with Billet Aluminum Hats
Rear brake system:
• Brembo Gran Turismo
• Brembo 4-piston Monobloc Calipers
• Brembo 380x28mm 2-Piece Slotted Discs with Billet Aluminum Hats

[James]

TESLA - Model S (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php)

Overview

- 300 mile range
- 45 minute QuickCharge (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/tesla-model-s-whitestar/2497-45-minute-quick-charge.html#post23972)
- 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds
- Seats 7 people
- More Cargo space than station wagons
- 2X as efficient as hybrids
- 17 inch infotainment touchscreen

Range

- Up to 300 mile range
- 45 minute QuickCharge
- Charges from 120V, 240V or 480V
- 5 minute battery swap

Utility

- Seating for 5 adults + 2 child seats
- Unique hatch for oversized items
- 60/40 flat-folding rear seat
- 2nd trunk under hood

Performance

- 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds
- 120 mph top speed (edit: sometimes reported as 130)
- Sport sedan dynamics
- All-wheel-drive available (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/tesla-model-s-whitestar/2513-awd-all-wheel-drive-option.html) (edit: probably not in the 1st model year)

[TEG]

They also mentioned plans for a future sport model with 0-60 < 5s

Saw this:
"They use the same battery tray for all three options... The 160 mile version will not use all the room in the tray, the 230 mile version would be full and the 300 mile version would be using a different type of LiIon battery with more energy capacity."

[dpeilow]

Just a note for Tesla: We don't have HD radio in Europe, the equivalents are DAB, DAB+ and in France it's T-DMB. Satellite radio is about to get going, as the 2 licenses for it are being finalised now (but it probably won't be compatible with XM Sirius).


Elon's update email just stated "electronically limited top speed of 130mph".

[Michael]

Was anyone able to get the specs on the Signature series model?

[dpeilow]

Presuming this is genuine, the dash in this shot shows battery 81%, Range in Miles 243. So does the silver car have a prototype 300 mile battery? (click for full original pic.)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3394666002_3a7850bb6d_o.jpg (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2009/03/teslamodelslive_38.jpg)

[TEG]

I suppose if it was only being used for lower speed test drives, the range computer might give a very long projected range. If you started using it more at highway speeds, the expected range might go down.
But, you could be right about it having some sort of prototype pack.

[dpeilow]

It could be because of the low speed, but 243 is exactly 81% of 300 so it would be a big coincidence.

[TEG]

Yep... Good observation.

[TEG]

Was anyone able to get the specs on the Signature series model?

Over here, Kevin wrote:

It appears that the Signature Series will in fact be different from the Standard Series. The plan is currently slightly different from the Roadster Signature Series. Of course the plan might change but currently they are planning on the Signature Series to have unique badging and they believe that the Signature Series will have some features and options available that the Standard Series will not have. Carbon Fibre Accents on the inside of the car was the only thing mentioned. The main difference from the Roadster SS is going to be that all of the Model S SS will be totally loaded with options. In a sense the only options on the Signature Series will in fact be DOWNGRADES not upgrades.

[Kevin Harney]

I asked them for specific specs on what will be standard and optional and was told that list was not complied yet and they would be releasing it soon.

[TEG]

Official FAQ here (http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/Model_S_FAQ.html)

[Iz]

10k discount for Roadster owners. Very nice. :cool:

[shark2k]

That FAQ has been there since they launched the Model S site.

-Shark2k

[iknowdoyou]

10k discount for Roadster owners. Very nice. :cool:

My understanding, though, is that the 10k discount is only for Roadster owners who purchase a Signature series Model S, not the regular version.

[dpeilow]

That FAQ has been there since they launched the Model S site.

-Shark2k


Yep. Am I the only one seeing a very crude HTML page that is missing its style sheets and the like?

[WarpedOne]

Same here. FF 3.0.8 on Ubuntu 8.10 / 64bit

[Kevin Harney]

Any thoughts on whether or not the Model S will have handsfree parallel parking ?

[dsm363]

They would have to have this but I haven't seen keyless entry and start yet many places (not on Tesla's site).
I did see something about RFID keyless entry and ignition system on Tesla Model S | Uncrate (http://www.uncrate.com/men/cars/hybrid/tesla-model-s/)
but not sure where they got the information.

[SByer]

I think that given the recent Daimler alliance that we may see some specs revised, as Tesla may now have access to technologies that would be too expensive for them to develop on their own - keyless entry, adaptive cruise control, the works.

Hopefully, though, they just completely ignore Mercedes' screen UI, which is awful.

[doug]

It's still a long way from production, but the collaboration with Daimler makes the integration of features like that more likely.





Edit to add: Oops SByer beat me to the punch.

[dsm363]

Cool. I would hope it's at least an option or included on the Signature edition. My current car is 10 years old and that's one of the nice features the newer case have that I wanted (not really necessary of course though). Even the Hyundai Genesis has it I believe so a 60-80 thousand car should. Thanks.

[dpeilow]

Obviously Business Insider was living under a rock for the past few months...

The Cool Door Handles On Tesla's Model S (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cool-door-handles-on-teslas-model-s-2009-7)

[ChrisC]

That's actually a pretty damning video. And I wonder if that would meet federal regulations.

Of course, I don't like the idea of a big touch screen in the dash either. Unless they pull off some sort of tactile feedback, a la the vibrating friction thing I read about recently.

[ricwhite]

IMO, the door handles are gimmicky and prone to unreliability. I'd rather have reliable manual handles that are flush with the car with a gap below.

[vfx]

Keyless entry would cut down the actual use of the handles.

[xcelero.ii]

Keyless entry would cut down the actual use of the handles.

Hmm.. Could you elaborate on your idea because keyless entry does not actually relate to the door handles. It is simply the manner in which the doors are unlocked and the Model S already has keyless entry. :smile:

[vfx]

Hmm.. Could you elaborate on your idea because keyless entry does not actually relate to the door handles. It is simply the manner in which the doors are unlocked and the Model S already has keyless entry. :smile:

So I'm saying you walk up to the S with the keyfob in your pocket. As you approach you can touch the handle and the door pops open. a double touch would pop the handle out, unlocked and ready for mechanical use.

Just an idea....

[xcelero.ii]

So I'm saying you walk up to the S with the keyfob in your pocket. As you approach you can touch the handle and the door pops open. a double touch would pop the handle out, unlocked and ready for mechanical use.

Just an idea....

Understood.

[vfx]

I suppose a fob key button could pop open the door(s) like it does the trunk as well.

[xcelero.ii]

I suppose a fob key button could pop open the door(s) like it does the trunk as well.

Interesting.

Thing is.. say you just want to open one of the back doors... or just the passenger door to get something out of the globe compartment. It would mean either a button for each door, or an array of specific clicks to open specific doors.

I kind of like the idea of pressing UNLOCK once to extend the driver's door handle. and pressing UNLOCK twice to extend all door handles. This way the user can decide which doors need to actually be opened each time.

[efusco]

Interesting.

Thing is.. say you just want to open one of the back doors... or just the passenger door to get something out of the globe compartment. It would mean either a button for each door, or an array of specific clicks to open specific doors.

I kind of like the idea of pressing UNLOCK once to extend the driver's door handle. and pressing UNLOCK twice to extend all door handles. This way the user can decide which doors need to actually be opened each time.

I guess a lot of folks haven't had the opportunity to use a smart key system like I have on my Prius...but the bottom line is this...I don't ever want to have to push any buttons to get in my car.

I want to walk up and the handle extends and then the car unlocks when I touch the handle. I should be able to program the car so that it extends just the driver's handle when I approach or it could extend all the handles when I approach. I don't want to take anything out of my pocket when I get in and I don't want to do anything more than touch the handle or a button on the door to lock it when I leave.

[xcelero.ii]

I guess a lot of folks haven't had the opportunity to use a smart key system like I have on my Prius...but the bottom line is this...I don't ever want to have to push any buttons to get in my car.

I want to walk up and the handle extends and then the car unlocks when I touch the handle. I should be able to program the car so that it extends just the driver's handle when I approach or it could extend all the handles when I approach. I don't want to take anything out of my pocket when I get in and I don't want to do anything more than touch the handle or a button on the door to lock it when I leave.

You know, I do agree!

I have a couple of good friends who drive a Prius and a few Lexus's and Toyota's in the family and they all have this touch pad on all the doors that is active when the smart key is near the vehicle. This is also what allows for the push-button-start to become active.

So I do much prefer the idea of having the handles extend when the user approaches the vehicle.

However, while I like the "touch to unlock" idea, I'm not too keen on the thought that even the passenger handles can be unlocked by touching.

If some crazy person wanted to, say, come along for a ride, all they would have to do is touch the handle on any passenger door and they would gain entry to the car while you are sitting in it, unsuspecting, getting ready to start the motor.

This system would need some sort of programing that takes into account "selective unlocking" to ensure that if the driver only wants to open their door, then that is the only door that can be opened and unlocked. And if the driver wants to unlock their door and all the others, then that can be achieved as well.

I know a lot of drivers who appreciate selective unlocking.

And yes. I am one of the paranoid many who lock the car doors as soon as I get in. :biggrin:

[efusco]

You know, I do agree!

I have a couple of good friends who drive a Prius and a few Lexus's and Toyota's in the family and they all have this touch pad on all the doors that is active when the smart key is near the vehicle. This is also what allows for the push-button-start to become active.

So I do much prefer the idea of having the handles extend when the user approaches the vehicle.

However, while I like the "touch to unlock" idea, I'm not too keen on the thought that even the passenger handles can be unlocked by touching.

If some crazy person wanted to, say, come along for a ride, all they would have to do is touch the handle on any passenger door and they would gain entry to the car while you are sitting in it, unsuspecting, getting ready to start the motor.

This system would need some sort of programing that takes into account "selective unlocking" to ensure that if the driver only wants to open their door, then that is the only door that can be opened and unlocked. And if the driver wants to unlock their door and all the others, then that can be achieved as well.

I know a lot of drivers who appreciate selective unlocking.

And yes. I am one of the paranoid many who lock the car doors as soon as I get in. :biggrin:

A more careful reading of my post would address your paranoid concerns. It would be user programable so that only the driver's door would extend if you wish. Where I live and work I have no concerns about such crazy people and more often than not my family is with me and needs access, so I'd program the car to extend all handles and unlock all doors when I touch my handle.

[xcelero.ii]

A more careful reading of my post would address your paranoid concerns. It would be user programable so that only the driver's door would extend if you wish. Where I live and work I have no concerns about such crazy people and more often than not my family is with me and needs access, so I'd program the car to extend all handles and unlock all doors when I touch my handle.

Understood.

[dsm363]

When do you think we can expect to at least find out final price for the Signature series and maybe further down the road what options might be available? It'd be nice if they could give out a timeframe (not a specific date since they'd miss that deadline) but something vague like "we hope to have option finalized by summer 2010" or something like that.

[Iz]

When do you think we can expect to at least find out final price for the Signature series and maybe further down the road what options might be available? .

Could be a small window. Perhaps ~ 6 months before the first production model rolls off.

[vfx]

Tesla Model S could have 95 kWh battery pack

ABG (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/25/report-tesla-model-s-could-have-95-kwh-battery-pack/)


Jim Motavalli has now gotten Tesla's chief technical officer, J.B. Straubel, to give a first public estimate of how big the 300-mile pack will be: 85 to 95 kWh.

[dpeilow]

That's a long lunch... :smile:


Click through to the NYT story - lots of interesting nuggets.

Tesla Model S: One Whopper of a Battery Pack - Wheels Blog - NYTimes.com (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/tesla-model-s-one-whopper-of-a-battery-pack/)

[Joseph]

Wow, 95 kwh.

The Roadster's battery pack is roughly half, and weighs nearly one thousand pounds. To make a feasible 95 kwh battery pack for the Model S seems to require almost exponential improvements.

If Tesla pulls it off though, it wouldn't just be badass - they'd set a whole standard for the EV industry.

[TEG]

They said 7800 cells for both 230mile range and 300 mile range...
7800/6831*53kWh = ~60kWh if the 230 mile range pack uses similar cells to the Roadster.

300 mile range / 230 mile range = 1.3x more energy needed.

2400mah * 1.3 = ~3120mAh per cell...

You can get 3000mAh cells today (http://www.batteryjunction.com/ultrafire-brc-18650.html).
I guess with 7800 of them it would be ~1.25x or 287 mile range with ~75kWh.

(Still just guessing that current pack uses 2400mAh cells).

It doesn't seem much of a stretch to assume that 3200mAh would be available soon.
But can they stand up to the same stresses as the current cells?

[vfx]

Click through to the NYT story - lots of interesting nuggets.


Some sweet bits. love the deja vous in the naysaying. (but now each with a hint of backpeddling)

[dpeilow]

You can get 3000mAh cells today (http://www.batteryjunction.com/ultrafire-brc-18650.html).

Nice. I bet there are some people on here that would pay ~$35k to upgrade to those.


In the NYT article, JB says:


The pack is within “technical reality,” given the experimental high-density cells Tesla is now working with, Mr. Straubel explained, adding that these cells could, with today’s technology, give the Roadster a range of 280 to 300 miles.

Yet 3000mAh comes out at 305 miles EPA already (simplistically).

[stopcrazypp]

Nice. I bet there are some people on here that would pay ~$35k to upgrade to those.

In the NYT article, JB says:
The pack is within “technical reality,” given the experimental high-density cells Tesla is now working with, Mr. Straubel explained, adding that these cells could, with today’s technology, give the Roadster a range of 280 to 300 miles.

Yet 3000mAh comes out at 305 miles EPA already (simplistically).

3000mAh cells still aren't very common yet, and it's unsure if the performance can match the more common 2400mAh cells. I don't think any big name brands are making 3000mAh cells yet. However 2800mAh is made by a couple of big name brands and 2900mAh cells are made by Panasonic.

2800-2900mAh means 285-295miles of range if you take 244 miles to be the range of the Roadster with 2400mAh cells. I think that was what Straubel was referring to (280-300 miles).

[Joseph]

"They said 7800 cells for both 230mile range and 300 mile range..."

I know very little about battery pack design, but I'd imagine the 230 mile and 300 mile range battery packs are not interchangeable.

The 300 mile range pack would need better cooling since it would have to deal with longer trips (probably taken at highway speed). Also, there are tradeoffs in cell design: energy density generally trades off with power capacity and a multitude of factors. Possibly, the higher energy cells require better care (and cooling) than the 230 mile cells because of these sort of trade offs in design.

Maybe they'll over-engineer the 230 mile range pack to leave room for improvements in the future - like 300 mile range cells?

And maybe I was exaggerating that they'll need "exponential" improvements. I'm a doubter!

[TEG]

When they say "experimental" it is possible that they mean commodity cells that haven't yet been tested in this particular application.

[dpeilow]

I found this quite funny:


Dick DeVogelaere, chief vehicle engineer for Magna International on the Ford battery car project, scheduled for 2011 production, was quoted saying “It would take a pickup truck to haul that battery around. It would probably weigh in excess of 1,000 pounds, maybe 1,200.” Mr. DeVogelaere also predicted that the cost would be three times that of a standard pack. “It’s all about mass,” he said. “If Tesla has a way to make it very light, maybe they can get there. But they would need some major breakthroughs — it would be difficult based on existing technology.”

Now, the existing Roadster pack is 450kg. Given that 1000lbs is 453kg, I hardly think you are going out on a limb there with that prediction, Mr DeVogelaere...


Furthermore, haven't we previously heard that the new battery improves the packing efficiency in terms of space and the mass of auxiliary systems?

The new cells that TEG found are 46g each, which means that 8000 of them weigh 368kg. Assuming even the same cell to total pack ratio for this Model S pack, that comes out at 550kg (coincidentally that's 1200lbs - I get the feeling someone has been doing their homework).

Now, given that the Jaguar XF weighs 1820kg, the Porsche Panamera weighs 1800kg and the Aston Martin Rapide is reckoned to weigh >1900kg, even with a 550kg pack the Model S has a lot of headroom against the cars in its class. A V8 with drivetrain weighs in around half that - so, a challenge, but hardly needing a pick-up truck.

As for the quote from the man from Aptera, that has to be way off.

[dpeilow]

Also, there are tradeoffs in cell design: energy density generally trades off with power capacity and a multitude of factors. Possibly, the higher energy cells require better care (and cooling) than the 230 mile cells because of these sort of trade offs in design.

Ah, the pesky power density.

Well, TEG's link says these cells have 0.5C max discharge. That would give a 44kW pack (I think), so I'll invoke the usual ultracapacitor buffer. :biggrin:

See, it could be built now. :wink:

[Cobos]

Still this does make it sound like the 300mile pack is probably going to be the most high-tech or cutting edge of the packs. And getting it ready just within a year after the regular Model S starts production sounds a bit iffy. I am so glad I only need the 160mile pack.

The big problem though for Tesla is in the image of the 300miles pack. Those buying that pack want the long range capability which I dare say is going to be ON the highway. Hence the difference between actual usefull range and claimed range is probably going to be biggest for that pack.

Cobos

[malcolm]

Should be optimised for EPA Highway rather than Combined? But that immediately suggests adding an extra 20-30% to the pack capacity!

[dsm363]

Just talked with someone from Tesla. Sounds like the 300 mile pack is at 50/50 for making it to production the first year. There will be a credited upgrade path for first year buyers to upgrade the next year, I was told at least.
Also, he said not to expect the options and such to be available until 4-6 months before production.

[James]

Based on my history with Tesla Motors (and the executive leather package) you cannot count on the options until the car is actually delivered. They are not guaranteed and there is no refund even if they end up as 1/3 of what the picture showed. :rolleyes:

Tesla produces a great car and I am sure that I will love the Model S also. But at this point there is nothing to even discuss about the Model S. It is a total blank page and we are flying blind. The fact that I am a Model S customer, even after the executive leather issue, should tell you how much I like my Tesla Roadster.

It is just a killer car and I am willing to overlook the "little" issues.... like a $6,000 executive leather bait and swtich.

[dpeilow]

Plastics News - Tesla turns to metal for sedan (http://www.plasticsnews.com/headlines2.html?id=16622)

[Cobos]

Tesla produces a great car and I am sure that I will love the Model S also. But at this point there is nothing to even discuss about the Model S. It is a total blank page and we are flying blind. The fact that I am a Model S customer, even after the executive leather issue, should tell you how much I like my Tesla Roadster.

Though some are flying more blind than others :) Out here in Europe we don't even have any idea of the price of the Model S. Still to be determined.

I wouldn't like to buy any of the Signature edition Model S for that very reason, you don't really know what you end up with, and even with a full deposit they can change the price on you. Well that and the fact that the Signature is just too expensive as well.

Cobos

[Cobos]

Though I'd post some here.
I just got a flyer from Topline, what seems to be the current Oslo distributer of Tesla cars. I'm not sure if they want a full Tesla shop as well here in Oslo but currently they seems to be representing Tesla. They recently had a VIP event which I unfortunately was unable to attend. But a bit of time later I got a flyer with a good offer for the Roadster and some more information for the Model S.

It's in Norwegian so I've translated the whole list.

Model S starts delivery to the US market next year and for Europe it will be availbable from Q2 2012. It will be delivered with 3 different battery options 255km, 370km and 480km.
Specifications:
7 seats
Manufacturers estimated price: 500 000 kr ($84 750)
Aluminumchassis based on MB E-class
680L storage area (not sure if that is just rear or rear + front?)
0-100 in 5,6 secs
5 min battery swap
Foldable rear seats (60/40)
45 min quick charge allowing 80% recharge
17” touch-screen
1735 kg

Some of this was new to me like the chassis and the exact weight and storage space. The price as well was a bit unwelcome surprise, as that is above my original max level I can afford :( Hopefully that includes a lot of equipment or it comes down a bit.

Cobos

[Albern]

Thanks for the info Cobos.

If it isn't too much trouble for you, do you think it's worth scanning and posting the flyer; any interesting any new pics of the car?

That's an interesting point about Mercedes E-Class chassis.

Also, I know Tesla have been touting the ~$55,000 price tag (after government rebates); is that price of $84,750 been expected for the European market? I figured it would be a bit more expensive but not by that much.

[T@oo]

I think the US prices are always without VAT. Those $84.750 are including 25% VAT for Norway? If yes, that will bring it down to $67.800. Still a lot more. How about the luxury tax in Norway for cars?

I thought only the first prototype was based an MB chassis. I'm still 40 years too young to drive MB ...

[svaamaas]

There are no vat or any taxes on EV cars in norway atm, but I guess it will change when the goverment find out everyone are buying a tesla :biggrin:

Have been lurking around in the forum for a while; Hello everyone!

[Cobos]

I think the US prices are always without VAT. Those $84.750 are including 25% VAT for Norway? If yes, that will bring it down to $67.800. Still a lot more. How about the luxury tax in Norway for cars?

I thought only the first prototype was based an MB chassis. I'm still 40 years too young to drive MB ...
As Svaamaas mentioned there are no VAT on EVs or any pigouvian taxes on EVs. Which is why I'm a bit curious why it's so much more expensive. Obviously when the price is listed with 5 zeroes that is not the final price but I had hoped it would be closer to 400 000 and not 500 000. Regardless I suppose we'll see when it does get a final price.

Albern: No new pics and since this is a non-public flyer only intented for the VIPs invited to the event I'd rather not post all of it online.

Cobos

[TEG]

...Aluminumchassis based on MB E-class...

OK, so perhaps the concept car is closer to production intent than some of us thought. I had heard before that Tesla had planned for the chassis to be their own design "from the ground up", but using an existing / proven chassis could be more expedient.


1735 kg

3800+ lbs is starting to get a bit heavy considering the use of lightweight materials (aluminum chassis, li-ion batteries, etc.) but probably not too surprising considering all the luxury features they want to include.

This spec page (http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-e-class-250-cgi-blueefficiency-sport-dimensions.asp) for an existing E-class variant shows 1650 kg, so it sounds like the Model S expects to be around the same weight as the MB gasoline counterpart.

I guess an aluminum variation of an E-class chassis would be something special as the standard seems to be steel...

2010 Mercedes-Benz E-class / E550 - First Drive Review - Auto Reviews - Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q1/2010_mercedes-benz_e-class_e550-first_drive_review)

...Under the new skin is an entirely new steel unibody structure. A few sprinklings of aluminum are present in the front fenders, hood, radiator support, and steering column bracket, but the E-class remains a steel-intensive vehicle. Not surprisingly, overall weight is expected to increase from the 3740 pounds the company claimed for the previous E350...

[stopcrazypp]

I had heard before that Tesla had planned for the chassis to be their own design "from the ground up", but using an existing / proven chassis could be more expedient.

3800+ lbs is starting to get a bit heavy...

I though they were going to do a ground up design also, so I'm a little skeptical about the E Class line. However, I do remember a report (on the Renault-Nissan / Daimler deal) mentioning Tesla talking to Daimler about parts for the Model S.

~4000lbs was what I expected for the 230 mile version, given most mid-sized V8 sedans are in that range and keeping in mind even the 160 mile / ~42kWh pack will likely weigh ~600-700lbs.

[Cobos]

I thought also they would create a chassis from scratch, so I was rather surprised about that line. Though it seems Topline got some inside information it still might turn out differently so keep this information as one datapoint but as it's one step removed from Tesla wait until we can get it confirmed.

Cobos

[vfx]

Any chance they were confused by the Prototype that was built off a Mercedes?

[T@oo]

MB E-Class chassis (http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-e-class-250-cgi-blueefficiency-sport-dimensions.asp)


Wheel Base 2874 mm - 9'5"

Model S spec (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-50-000-ev-sedan-seats-seven-300-mile-range-0-6/)

• Wheelbase 116.5"

Changing a chassis to stretch the wheelbase AND rework the transmission tunnel and who knows what else to fit the battery pack... Not sure if doing it "from ground up" wouldn't be a better option.

[T@oo]

BTW, I have Jaguar XF in my garage for a week, so I can get used to the rear view ... :wink:

http://www.autodino.de/autonews/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/jaguar-xf2.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2009/03/teslamodelslive_05.jpg

[tdelta1000]

This may have been asked but i'm a little lazy right now... Will the Model S have rear heasrests? If not why?

[Albern]

I brought that up when Model S was unveiled last year.

While I can't give a definitive answer, based on various auto safety requirements (FMVSS) I would assume that independent and adjustable headrests for the second row (possibly even the third row jump seats too) will be a requirement. Since the current running prototypes are what they are, I figured they decided not to opt for them for now.

Interesting thing though: I've been trying to find more info on rear passenger head rests. I'm noticing that manufacturers (especially the Japanese) have started to move away from fixed / no head rests to adjustable ones (eg. current gen Honda Civic VS previous gen).

However, some coups like the Infiniti G37 and Hyundai Genesis Coupe sill have fixed headrests. I've always wondered why that has been the case. (was kind of a selling point for me actually to which I decided not to buy). Yet, a BMW 335 coupe has them - what gives?

[2fast4u]

It could be because of the low speed, but 243 is exactly 81% of 300 so it would be a big coincidence.


Over here, Kevin wrote:

agree

[eledille]

vfx, Cobos:

I bet Topline is wrong about the Mercedes chassis. Different material = different construction. Also, the layout is completely different, and Tesla has been telling us all about how great it was to design the car from the ground up with all that space available that the flat battery pack gives.

Cobos: A Tesla employee told me via email that they will have a store in Oslo in time for the Model S. If not, Tesla has a store in Copenhagen. You can buy one there and drive it to the Norwegian customs office. So I would not give Topline or any other gold diggers any money. I bet Teslas price will be better than either Toplines or Ferdinands - and if Tesla is also too greedy, you can always import one from the US yourself. Many companies specialize in this business. I contacted a company with employees in the US that help out with inspection, packaging etc - they estimated about 12k NOK total cost to have a Roadster shipped from California to Oslo in a container. You need to check out the reputation of any company or individual you buy these services from.

[Cobos]

I also think Topline is wrong about the Mercedes chassis, but it might be a matter of using a Mercedes chassis as a basis for their own. Essentially getting Mercedes to custombuild an aluminium-chassis for Tesla?

I'm sure Topline wont price themselves out of the market, he's been very sensible in that regard. Which is also why I resent calling him a golddigger. There's no doubt he's doing good work representing Tesla in Oslo. He wants to become the Oslo store for Tesla, and if you ask me that would be a good call. Espen their scandinavian sales manager told me at Klimabil 2010 that his main project is an Oslo store by the end of 2011. Centrally located in Oslo, and hopefully running by the end of next year.

Tesla has a slight problem with their international sales, as all their top people are used to the US way of thinking at these things. It was pretty clear that after talking with the Model S contact in the UK branch they don't really understand car sales in Europe, at least not all the fine nuances.

Cobos

[eledille]

Ok, that's good to hear. I shouldn't have called Topline a golddigger without knowing more about them. Sorry.

I'm just annoyed at seeing non-Tesla companies advertising 2008 Roadsters for NOK 799000 (USD 127k at todays rate). At that markup I could have taken a month off from work and brought the whole family to the US to buy one myself and still save money.

[Cobos]

Eledille: I'm not sure where you are seeing regular Roadsters for 800k NOK. Looking at finn.no where he advertises for the Roadster Topline is selling the base Roadster model for 699k NOK. That is a pretty decent price since Tesla themselves lists the Roadster at 787k DKK If anything I'd say Topline is taking a too small cut, so I fear for the health of the company :)

Cobos

[eledille]

I didn't check current prices, my post was a knee-jerk reaction. But I have seen those prices not that long ago, otherwise I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. I checked now, and I have to admit it's looking better. Perhaps Topline has been able to push the prices down. If so - good job.

[TEG]

Back when we saw original press releases and articles I had ~80kWh for 300 mile pack, but based on updates, I changed it to 90.
Currently I show this:




160 mile range base pack (42kWh, 5500 cells)
230 mile range upgrade (~60kWh, 7800 cells)
300 mile range upgrade (~90kWh, 7800 next generation cells)



That 90kWh figure in part was based on _this article_ (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/25/report-tesla-model-s-could-have-95-kwh-battery-pack/)

But I keep thinking it doesn't quite fit.
If we guess that current, proven Roadster cells are 2200mAh, then

160 mile modelS = 5500cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~42kWh
245mile Roadster= 6831cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~53kWh
230 mile modelS = 7800cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~60kWh
300 mile modelS = 7800cells*2800mAh*3.6V=~78kWh ???
300 mile modelS = 7800cells*3000mAh*3.6V=~84kWh ???



The above makes some sense since 2200mAh are common commodity 18650 cells right now, and the 2800mAh & 3000mAh are "next generation".

Checking the numbers,
160miles*60/42=~230miles (check)
160miles*78/42=~300miles... OK... So why would they need 90kWh?

So I am still wondering why the quotes of 95kWh rather than 80kWh...
Maybe they already have a "next-next generation" pack in the works that can do 160*95/42=360 mile range (?!)

Anyways, just pondering numbers...

[eledille]

A 360 mile battery would be very welcome - then I wouldn't have to worry about a recharge network that may or may not work or be present where I need it.

[T@oo]

Back when we saw original press releases and articles I had ~80kWh for 300 mile pack, but based on updates, I changed it to 90.
Currently I show this:


That 90kWh figure in part was based on _this article_ (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/25/report-tesla-model-s-could-have-95-kwh-battery-pack/)

But I keep thinking it doesn't quite fit.
If we guess that current, proven Roadster cells are 2200mAh, then

160 mile modelS = 5500cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~42kWh
245mile Roadster= 6831cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~53kWh
230 mile modelS = 7800cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~60kWh
300 mile modelS = 7800cells*2800mAh*3.6V=~78kWh ???
300 mile modelS = 7800cells*3000mAh*3.6V=~84kWh ???



The above makes some sense since 2200mAh are common commodity 18650 cells right now, and the 2800mAh & 3000mAh are "next generation".

Checking the numbers,
160miles*60/42=~230miles (check)
160miles*78/42=~300miles... OK... So why would they need 90kWh?

So I am still wondering why the quotes of 95kWh rather than 80kWh...
Maybe they already have a "next-next generation" pack in the works that can do 160*95/42=360 mile range (?!)

Anyways, just pondering numbers...



Using given specs, I did some calculations, too.

6831 cells * 3.6 * 2200 = 54,1 kW/h for 244 miles I get 220 Wh/mile for the roadster.
Using 42 kW/h for 160 miles, I get 262 Wh/mile for small pack Model S. That's a hefty 20% more Wh/mile mainly for one reason: weight (~2000 kg).

The Roadster Battery pack contains 11 modules each 621 cells. Assuming they want to keep the voltage level equal and keep using the 11 modules layout, a 160-mile Model S will have:

11x483= 5313 cells * 3,6V * 2200 mAh = 42,1 kW/h.

But more cells for bigger packs means more weight reducing the efficency even more. Just assuming another 5% means the 230 mile pack will need to be around 63 kW/h. My calc:

11*724=7964 cells
7964 * 3.6 * 2200 = 63,1 kW/h

The same pack with the upgrade cells:

7964 * 3.6 * 3000 = 86 kW/h

And using the 4000 mAh cells expected for 2013:

7964 * 3.6 * 4000= 114,7 kW/h

Wow. A small pack with upgraded cells:

5313 cells * 3.6 * 3000 = 57,4 kW/h
5313 cells * 3.6 * 4000 = 76,5 kW/h

Just playing with the numbers but quite some options. The biggest pack will be good for > 400 miles.

[TEG]

Thanks for continuing to ponder. We are assuming consistent cell voltage but it is possible that different chemistry cells might have different voltage range possibilities...

Anyways, here is a recap of the numbers:

Range - Cells - Cap/Cell - PackCap
~160 - 5313 - 2200mAh - 42kWh
~230 - 7964 - 2200mAh - 61kWh
~300 - 7964 - 2800mAh - 80kWh
~330 - 7964 - 3000mAh - 86kWh
~390 - 7964 - 3600mAh - 103kWh
~430 - 7964 - 4000mAh - 115kWh

Just speculation at this point though.

[SteveTheTech]

I suppose a fob key button could pop open the door(s) like it does the trunk as well.

I have been working closely with the Nissan ikey system for a while now. They are pretty secure and fairly simple. Now the car has the ability to register the owner from a distance of a meter to illuminate welcome lighting. Although not used by Nissan an auto unlock feature or other mechanism might be able to ""magically" operate with hard and software already in use (and being in use since 2003). Pop out door handles look nifty but unrealistic, at least it was in the conventional market.

Thinking about for a few minutes makes me realize something new. There would never be a really dead battery lockout condition. I would imagine even if the battery were too discharged to drive it should still power the low voltage devices.

The keys use a standard rfid chip in the key and proximity detectors around the vehicle it should know when the key is approaching anything could happen.


OK, so perhaps the concept car is closer to production intent than some of us thought. I had heard before that Tesla had planned for the chassis to be their own design "from the ground up", but using an existing / proven chassis could be more expedient.

I find it really hard to believe after reading the Wired article that Tesla would reuse such an already widely available (all the Es, Clk, Glk) platform for their debut sedan. More likely what they would do if partnered with MB would be the third phase of their plan, the micro electrics. Selling batteries is what will keep them afloat for a little while. I think that article mentioned that as well.

[PopSmith]

Pop out door handles look nifty but unrealistic, at least it was in the conventional market.

I thought I heard someone at Tesla mention during the Model S unveiling that the door handles were designed that way to help further reduce drag.

As far as I know aerodynamics has a greater impact on range than weight. That got me wondering: Since the pop out handles (and/or the system to support them) probably weigh more than conventional handles, would the aerodynamic advantage really be enough to justify them vs conventional door handles?

[SteveTheTech]

CAD to the rescue.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtdYPqGzVBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtdYPqGzVBs

This video wasn't exactly the one I was looking for but there are several good shots of airflow over the door area with simulated door handles. The smoothness of the cars' waistline appears to be an area of focus here. Cars like the GT-R have push and pull designs that are already very flush and ideal for drag. I'm someone here can elaborate better than me on this.

In reality car companies already have very complex mechanisms inside the doors now. Cars with intelligent key technology have both pulse sensors and request buttons as well as several mechanisms to transmit the handle motion and unlock function. I would imagine integrating this into one simpler lightweight device would make the reliability of such a mechanised door handle would realistically be possible but I do not know that the public would take to that just yet. Then again there are many things assumed impractical before might be possible in the very near future.

[edo]

I thought I heard someone at Tesla mention during the Model S unveiling that the door handles were designed that way to help further reduce drag.

As far as I know aerodynamics has a greater impact on range than weight.

This nut's been cracked so many times I don't know why they even bothered making them so high-tech. At least with the Aston Martin (http://jalopnik.com/5556819/whats-the-coolest-car-door-handle) version, you can still get in the car if the battery dies.

My favorite kind (which i couldn't find online) was a fingertrap thing that you would slip your hand into...

[vfx]

Aston Martin (http://jalopnik.com/5556819/whats-the-coolest-car-door-handle)...

Fun Thread. It needs a Tesla Roadster. People getting in always ask how do I... click!

[PopSmith]

Cars like the GT-R have push and pull designs that are already very flush and ideal for drag.

Here it is...
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/6637/112080322z2009nissangtr.jpg

...in operation:
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9438/nissangtrhandle555.jpg


Fun Thread. It needs a Tesla Roadster.

Agreed, except that thread's on Jalopnik so the odds of that happening are currently near-zero. :frown:

[SteveTheTech]

After the second time opening it you begin to develop a fluid motion and the weight of the handle makes opening the door a pleasure.

[TEG]

Official specs page here (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs)
Another spec page here (http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/display_data/Spec_ModelS_US.pdf)
Official FAQ page here (http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/display_data/Model_S_FAQ.html)

[TEG]

0-60 Performance Targets:
Standard; 5.7s
Sport; 4.4s

[dsm363]

Are they planning on having the sport model available at launch now? The last time I heard, it wasn't going to be ready first model year but I was told that a long time ago.

[TEG]

No idea. I was just searching through old presentations around the internet, and noticed that 4.4s quote for sport from over a year ago, with no target date for release. The original press releases said 0-60 < 6s for standard Model S, then revised later to < 5.7s, and now it seems 5.6s.
I wonder if 4.4s still holds as the target for the sport variant?

[stopcrazypp]

Sport; 4.4s
That's BMW M5, MBenz E36 AMG territory, so good targets to set. $86k is the price point for those two.

There's an interesting characteristic that may play into which version of the Model S may be the "Sport". As the pack gets larger, the power available also gets larger. It may be necessary for the "Sport" version to have the 300 mile pack in order to have enough power for the target performance.

Edit: just saw the update

[dsm363]

That would be amazing if the sport model were available at launch, at least for the signature edition as an option. If it truly is just a motor swap and maybe firmware difference, I don't see why they couldn't make a limited number available for the Signature Series and then work on making more available for the second model year. I guess we'll know next year sometime.

[Kevin Harney]

IMHO all of the Signatures should be Sports and should be loaded. Otherwise what are they going to do to make it "Special" ? A badge - big deal !!

[Thalass]

The Model S is going to be AWD? I assume by having a second motor up front?

This makes it the perfect car for me. I'm a long time Subaru driver, and to me FWD or RWD cars are unnatural. Now i wonder if i could get a lift-kit and some rally tyres for it... Wow!

[dsm363]

IMHO all of the Signatures should be Sports and should be loaded. Otherwise what are they going to do to make it "Special" ? A badge - big deal !!

Exactly. The Signature series is supposed to start with the 230 mile pack but that alone should not be all it comes with (along with the special badge). It should be basically loaded except for maybe a few cosmetic upgrade options. I don't think the sport version was supposed to be available the first model year but I'm hoping they provide it at least for the Signature series customers to make it a little more special then once production is through it's first year, make it an option.

Thalass: I don't believe the Model S is supposed to be AWD the first model year but someone correct me if I have that wrong.

[TEG]

The original info about AWD is so old that it is hard to know what they are planning now.
But, yeah, I think the intention was it wouldn't necessarily be available right at the start of production.
Now that they have "Model X" (SUV) in the pipeline maybe they are planning to have that model be the launch platform for AWD?

[Thalass]

Ah that's a bit of a shame. Since Subaru show no sign of producing an electric impreza or liberty/legacy any time soon, i thought for a moment we might see a Tesla win the WRC! haha

[theBike45]

For an electric, adding all-wheel drive is a whole lot easier. I assume Fisker Karma is still being
fitted with PML Flightlink in-wheel electric motors. I assume Tesla avoided those because of cost
considerations, but I have no word of that. Inwheels should provide for the best performing traction
control and the Flightlink motors weigh no more than your standard disk brake system, providing for
zero weight costs electric motors. I'll try to verify Karma's use of Flightlinks.

[dpeilow]

PML Flight Link has never been discussed for the Karma and the company doesn't even still exist.

[TEG]

When TheBike posts something, and someone responds, does he/she/it ever reply? Bikey are you there?

[qwk]

When TheBike posts something, and someone responds, does he/she/it ever reply? Bikey are you there?

Is it a Bot?

[TEG]

Careful, if you use the right keyword it might respond.

[Albern]

For an electric, adding all-wheel drive is a whole lot easier. I assume Fisker Karma is still being
fitted with PML Flightlink in-wheel electric motors. I assume Tesla avoided those because of cost
considerations, but I have no word of that. Inwheels should provide for the best performing traction
control and the Flightlink motors weigh no more than your standard disk brake system, providing for
zero weight costs electric motors. I'll try to verify Karma's use of Flightlinks.


PML Flight Link has never been discussed for the Karma and the company doesn't even still exist.

Yes you're right dpeilow; I believe Fisker is using in-wheel motors from a military application (can't remember the name at the moment). PML Flightlink did build an electric Mini Cooper using their technology as a demonstration piece (http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/07q1/pml_flightlink_electric_mini_cooper-car_news).

[TEG]

I believe Fisker is using in-wheel motors from a military application (can't remember the name at the moment).

Fisker never planned to use in-wheel motors.
Quantum...
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/09/10/quantum-receives-30m-purchase-order-to-produce-components-for-f/
http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2010/09/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01348710c870970c-800wi.png
Dual motors on either side of the differential...

(theBike45 got us to go off topic for this thread.)

[felixtb]

I get your point, but the analogy isn't very good. A weekend house is 100% for this special use. A car isn't a 100% special use for long road trips.

The focus should be on how you use the car 99.98% of the time, not the .02% of the time you'd need to go on some road trip. At a 250 mile range, it'll do almost any road trip I care about, such as a trip to the coast. A simple standard plug, left in from the time I get there until I leave (typically at least 24-36 hours if I'm there for a weekend) will typically recharge it enough for the trip back.

It's like complaining that your roadster can't carry a cubic yard of gravel the .02% of the time when you need to go to the landscaping store. It's a total WTF comment. If you that's your criteria, then why did you buy a roadster?

OK sorry for not giving the best analogy but I certainly go on drives in my current sports car ,roadster #EU502 on order!!

If you go back to the beginning of my reply then you see that I do think that Tesla have the range down so now they need to concentrate on charge time so for people, unlike you, whom like to take longer weekend road trips have an easier time. to do so. For example if one could have the current range but halve the current charge time then start in the morning drive till lunch have a nice long 1 1/2-2hr lunch then get going again until one hits dinner or hotel time. Very often with my wife and I we tend to drive about 400-450 miles per day. And I am already thinking of how I will be able to do this even with the roadster. the lunches will initially be longer than usual and the dinners later. So for me range is important and since both the Teslas are drivers cars I think my case is not alone. I do velive that they need to focus on how to get their charge times down so that the range can be doubled with less down time so to speak.

/fb

[kvietor]

The reps at the Detroit auto show said there is no plans for an awd on the Model S.

[Jaff]

As a fan of all wheel drive, I really hate to say this...

I'm so impressed with the Roadster's winter performance (due to the large battery weight over the rear wheels, TC and regen braking), if the Model S performs the same in winter weather, I no longer feel that all wheel drive is a necessity.

I'm assuming that the TC & regen braking will function the same on the Model S as the Roadster...to me, it is now a question of will the Model S's flat, evenly displaced (floor) battery config keep enough weight over (around) the rear wheels to help match the Roadster's performance...


Any thoughts?

The reps at the Detroit auto show said there is no plans for an awd on the Model S.

[cinergi]

As a fan of all wheel drive, I really hate to say this...

I'm so impressed with the Roadster's winter performance (due to the large battery weight over the rear wheels, TC and regen braking), if the Model S performs the same in winter weather, I no longer feel that all wheel drive is a necessity.

I'm assuming that the TC & regen braking will function the same on the Model S as the Roadster...to me, it is now a question of will the Model S's flat, evenly displaced (floor) battery config keep enough weight over (around) the rear wheels to help match the Roadster's performance...


Any thoughts?


I do wonder how much of a role the weight in the rear plays. If there are others here who've driven RWD cars that have their mass up front (front engine) with winter tires, I'm curious to hear about their experiences. I'm assuming that even with a flat evenly-distributed battery pack in the Model S, that there'll still be more weight in the rear than there would be in an ICE RWD (front engine) vehicle.

I'm betting TC and winter tires have more to do with things than the weight. One of the biggest problems with RWD has been that if it slips, the rear end of the car will flail around (since it's pushing and there's no steering control). With TC, that's virtually eliminated.

[Jaff]

You're probably right about the TC being the kingmaker in the Roadster's superior winter performance...I didn't include winter tires in the equation as I've always put winter tires on my RWD ICE vehicles...still, with unacceptable results imo.

I'm mostly drawing on my own RWD experience (Lexus GS 450h) combined with anecdotes from many of my rural clients...their tales of tractionless woe when driving their pickup trucks (even with some additional weight placed in the box...)

No weight = no go...




I do wonder how much of a role the weight in the rear plays. If there are others here who've driven RWD cars that have their mass up front (front engine) with winter tires, I'm curious to hear about their experiences. I'm assuming that even with a flat evenly-distributed battery pack in the Model S, that there'll still be more weight in the rear than there would be in an ICE RWD (front engine) vehicle.

I'm betting TC and winter tires have more to do with things than the weight. One of the biggest problems with RWD has been that if it slips, the rear end of the car will flail around (since it's pushing and there's no steering control). With TC, that's virtually eliminated.

[Todd Burch]

If Tesla is indeed no longer planning an AWD version (whereas previously they said they were), then my guess is that they've determined from the alphas that performance is so good without AWD that its minimal improvement is not worth the extra weight, complexity, and cost.

[Doug_G]

I'm so impressed with the Roadster's winter performance (due to the large battery weight over the rear wheels, TC and regen braking), if the Model S performs the same in winter weather, I no longer feel that all wheel drive is a necessity.


I too drive an AWD in the winter (currently an Infiniti G37x). I've driven AWD, 4WD, FWD, and RWD in the winter, and that list is in my order of preference. (Yes AWD is now at the top; the G37x integration of AWD with the stability control is excellent. A classic 4WD without front-back differential really waddles through corners.)

That said, I have had my Roadster out in the snow with summer tires and was simply astonished at how well it works. The traction control is amazing.

I remember driving RWD vehicles in the late 70's, and they are primitive in comparison with today's cars. No ABS, traction control, stability control, etc. If you hit the brakes hard the front wheels stop, steering control is totally gone, and into the snowbank (or a car) you go. If you start to slip going up a really greasy hill, you're going back down sideways (been there, done that). If you hit a patch of black ice while accelerating... well, once I got surprised by black ice on a 417 on-ramp; came out of 2-1/2 donuts going backwards at 70kph... amazingly no harm done!

You needed skill to safely drive a 70's RWD car in the winter, and back then that was all the choice you had.

Modern cars have the ABS, TC and stability control, and that makes all the difference. You don't lose steering when you brake. Your rear wheels don't fly out when you hit ice. So, in short, there isn't nearly as much difference as there used to be. All the things that made driving in snow a real skill in an RWD car have been fixed.

After discovering how amazingly good the Roadster's electric TC is, I'm now completely confident about driving a RWD Model S in an Ottawa winter.

[dsm363]

Can anyone tell from the Model S Alpha drive video where the charge door is? They always seem to show the car from the right side with only brief glimpses of the left side of the car.

[TEG]

Can anyone tell from the Model S Alpha drive video where the charge door is? They always seem to show the car from the right side with only brief glimpses of the left side of the car.

I think that question has been asked, and no one has identified it yet. From the videos, it doesn't look like there is a flap where there was one on the original demonstration prototype.

[andbou29]

quelq' one could tell me in centimetres exact dimensions of the Tesla S: length ,width ,height thank you

[TEG]

quelq' one could tell me in centimetres exact dimensions of the Tesla S: length ,width ,height thank you

Not sure how accurate... Probably subject to change... Also, these were specs for the demonstration prototype, so the production car really could be different, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S
Length 196 in (~498 cm)

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2012-tesla-model-s4.htm
Width: 74.0 inches (~188 cm)
Height: 58.0 inches (~147 cm)

[Jaff]

I concur completely Doug! (been there in the 70's & done all of that too)...the only hurdle that I see the TM needs to clear is to develop some sort of door gasket to keep the @#@$%**!! slush outta my Roadster's doorsills! :tongue::wink:



I too drive an AWD in the winter (currently an Infiniti G37x). I've driven AWD, 4WD, FWD, and RWD in the winter, and that list is in my order of preference. (Yes AWD is now at the top; the G37x integration of AWD with the stability control is excellent. A classic 4WD without front-back differential really waddles through corners.)

That said, I have had my Roadster out in the snow with summer tires and was simply astonished at how well it works. The traction control is amazing.

I remember driving RWD vehicles in the late 70's, and they are primitive in comparison with today's cars. No ABS, traction control, stability control, etc. If you hit the brakes hard the front wheels stop, steering control is totally gone, and into the snowbank (or a car) you go. If you start to slip going up a really greasy hill, you're going back down sideways (been there, done that). If you hit a patch of black ice while accelerating... well, once I got surprised by black ice on a 417 on-ramp; came out of 2-1/2 donuts going backwards at 70kph... amazingly no harm done!

You needed skill to safely drive a 70's RWD car in the winter, and back then that was all the choice you had.

Modern cars have the ABS, TC and stability control, and that makes all the difference. You don't lose steering when you brake. Your rear wheels don't fly out when you hit ice. So, in short, there isn't nearly as much difference as there used to be. All the things that made driving in snow a real skill in an RWD car have been fixed.

After discovering how amazingly good the Roadster's electric TC is, I'm now completely confident about driving a RWD Model S in an Ottawa winter.

[Jaff]

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head here Todd!

As long as TM can replicate the Roadster's winter performance, I'm good w/o AWD! :smile:


If Tesla is indeed no longer planning an AWD version (whereas previously they said they were), then my guess is that they've determined from the alphas that performance is so good without AWD that its minimal improvement is not worth the extra weight, complexity, and cost.

[Doug_G]

I concur completely Doug! (been there in the 70's & done all of that too)...the only hurdle that I see the TM needs to clear is to develop some sort of door gasket to keep the @#@$%**!! slush outta my Roadster's doorsills! :tongue::wink:

Ditto on that. My wife refuses to get into the car until spring!

[Jaff]

Wait a minute Doug...there could be an upside to this...never have to share driving :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::wink:


Ditto on that. My wife refuses to get into the car until spring!

[EVNow]

Length 196 in (~498 cm)

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2012-tesla-model-s4.htm
Width: 74.0 inches (~188 cm)
Height: 58.0 inches (~147 cm)
I didn't realize S is this large. 6 inches longer than BMW 6 series.

[ckessel]

Length 196 in (~498 cm)
Damn, that's nearly 2 feet longer than my RX8. I knew it'd be longer, but that's a lot more than I expected. I'll have to see on the test drive how it feels, but my first instinct is that may be more car than I'm comfortable with.

Get rid of those stupid 2 rear facing seats!

[TEG]

Yes, the jumbo size is the one main thing that keeps me from being a depositor on Model S.
If they had a 4/5 size version it would be more to my liking.

[vfx]

Yes, the jumbo size is the one main thing that keeps me from being a depositor on Model S.
If they had a 4/5 size version it would be more to my liking.

Same here.


It really is a big car in person. With just me driving it is overkill. I suppose Elon with 5 kids is making a car for himself.

[Adm]

For me the size is just fine. I guess there is no way to please everybody... ok no need for seats 6 and 7....

[EVNow]

Same here.
It really is a big car in person. With just me driving it is overkill. I suppose Elon with 5 kids is making a car for himself.
I'd have thought they would go for a mid-size car first, rather than a full size car. Is it because they need that much of floor space for the large battery pack ?

[ckessel]

For me the size is just fine. I guess there is no way to please everybody... ok no need for seats 6 and 7....

After looking at a bunch of cars in the same class (BMW M5 & 7-series, Mercedes E-class, etc), the Model S looks perfectly within the norm. The range is about 191-204, with Model S being 196, so it's right in the middle. After years of driving sports cars, I hadn't realized just how big a luxury sedan really was. The design just doesn't look that big, but it must be my personal bias that sporty looks must mean smaller.

[EVNow]

In the US, EPA classification goes by interior volume, rather than length.

Here is the vehicle size classification from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class

Audi A8 is 199" long. E Class is 191". S Class, Cadillac DTS, Lincoln Towncar etc are much larger around 204". Model S seems to be somewhere between the Luxury Mid-Size and Luxury Full Size.

Anyway, too large for me. Hopefully, I'll have more choices when its time to switch from Leaf. Hoping for a rightsized Infinity or Megacity.

[kgb]

196 inches (just putting it into perspective with some cars that I know)

Thats the same length as a Mercedes CLS
Lexus LS460 is 199 inches
Lexus LS460L is 204 inches
Mercedes S550 is 205 inches

Since I already have a Lexus LS460, I know that the Model S will fit in my garage. :wink:

[Jaff]

The Model S is 6 " longer than my Lexus 450h...will be ok in the garage though.

I wonder if the future, yet to be designed Roadster will be TM's answer to the "smaller" performance vehicle?

[trevorlsciact]

Damn, that's nearly 2 feet longer than my RX8. I knew it'd be longer, but that's a lot more than I expected. I'll have to see on the test drive how it feels, but my first instinct is that may be more car than I'm comfortable with.

Get rid of those stupid 2 rear facing seats!

Those are going to be an option, and they aren't stupid they are very practical for large families. If you don't like the size you can always wait for Tesla to come out with a smaller model.

[nick_083]

The reps at the Detroit auto show said there is no plans for an awd on the Model S.

That will be a deal breaker for me to the extent of cancelling the reservation. Everyone who raced knows how much AWD improves the handling of a car. Remember how Audi Quattro won pretty much every race for several years after they introduced their Quattro model. I agree, that you can improve the traction with all electronic gadgets, but no car enters / exits the turns on full throttle as AWD car... especially if you have any amount of rain / snow on the ground.

[Lloyd]

I would bet that they incorporate AWD, and many other improvements in the next version of the Roadster, but that may be a little wait. I'm content to drive my S model until they make something better that I have to have!!

[dsm363]

That will be a deal breaker for me to the extent of cancelling the reservation. Everyone who raced knows how much AWD improves the handling of a car. Remember how Audi Quattro won pretty much every race for several years after they introduced their Quattro model. I agree, that you can improve the traction with all electronic gadgets, but no car enters / exits the turns on full throttle as AWD car... especially if you have any amount of rain / snow on the ground.

Are you planning on racing the Model S? I'm not sure if canceling your reservation just because it doesn't have AWD is the way to go since the Roadster apparently handles in the snow really well without it but everyone is different of course.

[vfx]

Loyd has it right. What else will there be? Buy the S and wait for the AWD EV to come out (from whomever). Driving a cool car in the meantime is what I'm doing with the Roadster until something more practical comes out.

[dsm363]

Loyd has it right. What else will there be? Buy the S and wait for the AWD EV to come out (from whomever). Driving a cool car in the meantime is what I'm doing with the Roadster until something more practical comes out.

I love the Roadster and am glad I got it but I imagine I'll drive the Model S much more when it comes out.

[nick_083]

Are you planning on racing the Model S? I'm not sure if canceling your reservation just because it doesn't have AWD is the way to go since the Roadster apparently handles in the snow really well without it but everyone is different of course.

I do race my cars. You guys are lucky you can afford several of these cool toys... but not everyone can... and for me AWD is that important (some people like blonds... some like AWD cars.. you know). Frankly speaking I may not be as concerned about AWD if I lived in TX though. As much as I fell in love with EV idea... perhaps for now I will just get a new 550i xDrive... and it will keep me happy for the next couple of years until I can get AWD EV car. I am going to see one in-person tomorrow in Chicago... want to hear it first hands though before I make a final decision.

[nick_083]

I went to see Model S in Chicago today. Actually first time I saw the car in person. They had a prototype only (can't touch, can't seat)... but it looked drop dead gorgeous inside out. Unfortunately I forgot the camera, so only have lousy pictures from my BlackBerry. Not much news on a specs front, they don't know the options / packages / pricing and don't even know what signature series options / pricing would be like. They felt this information should be available by October, but were pretty comfortable AWD will not make it to Model S, but would be introduced in Model X.

It was interesting, that in my group of 5-7 people, who stood there interrogating Tesla stuff... pretty much everyone was asking about AWD option.

[ckessel]

It was interesting, that in my group of 5-7 people, who stood there interrogating Tesla stuff... pretty much everyone was asking about AWD option.
Must be a cold weather state thing. I don't know that I've ever talked to anyone here in Oregon that cared about AWD unless they were skiers that regularly went into snow country. Granted, it's not something that comes up in conversation much, but no one that's ever shown me their new car bothered to tout it was AWD.

[cinergi]

Being RWD also incites a lot more questions about an AWD option. Most people I know equate RWD to impossible winter driving. Chicago and Boston average the same yearly snowfall -- and AWD is a popular topic here (where I am), too.

[Eberhard]

From the annual Report:


The Model S drive inverter, for example, will be able to deliver approximately 1,000 amps of current at better efficiency and lower cost as compared to the Tesla Roadster drive inverter. In addition, we are also designing the drive inverter to integrate more directly with other components of the powertrain, reducing cost and size while improving packaging efficiency.

I would not wonder, if Model S as can accelerate better as announced.

[TEG]

Tesla's electric roadster changing dealership paradigm (http://www.calgaryherald.com/cars/Tesla+electric+roadster+changing+dealership+paradigm/4886396/story.html)

...Tesla says the sedan will go from 0-97 km/h in under six seconds, and have a top speed of 194 km/h...

[dpeilow]

In an interview in today's [London] Times, Elon says the Model S 300 mile battery is 90 kWh...

[TEG]

In an interview in today's [London] Times, Elon says the Model S 300 mile battery is 90 kWh...

Yep, that is what I had put in the original specs back at the end of 2009... (See the first post in this topic.)

300 mile range upgrade (~90kWh, 7800 next generation cells)

[Doug_G]

In an interview in today's [London] Times, Elon says the Model S 300 mile battery is 90 kWh...

Wow. Assuming that's the full theoretical capacity, i.e. comparable to 56 kWh for the Roadster, then it's 61% bigger. That suggests the Model S uses 29% more energy per km (mile) than the Roadster (90 kWh = 300 miles versus 56 kWh = 240 miles). I guess that's the cost of a bigger vehicle.

That also suggests, per mile of range, the Model S will take 29% longer to charge, assuming the same power is available. The extra capacity will offset this to a degree; for example, if the larger pack is sufficient to get you all the way to your destination (it might be just enough for non-stop Ottawa to east-end Toronto), then you'll save lots of time. But if you have to do a lot of charging then it might be faster to take the Roadster.

Let's hope those 45 minute fast DC chargers get installed along major highways! That will make all the difference.

[Tommy]

Wow. Assuming that's the full theoretical capacity, i.e. comparable to 56 kWh for the Roadster, then it's 61% bigger. That suggests the Model S uses 29% more energy per km (mile) than the Roadster (90 kWh = 300 miles versus 56 kWh = 240 miles). I guess that's the cost of a bigger vehicle.

Another possibility is the 300 mile range for the Model S will be available in standard mode; so maybe the 29% more energy use is not the case. I recall Tesla stating the range specs they were going to use for the Model S were going to be conservative; stated mileage range being possible in real world driving.

[Eberhard]

with the 3-phase 400V32A = 22kW charging time is 4h, with 63A = 44kW only 2h. Model S must come with a build-in 3-phase charger anything else is nonsense, even for america. DC would help only a little bit, because it would be a little but easier to use a third-party charger. But I don't understand, why Tesla should give this away? put this on the list of options to get extra money

[Mycroft]

It can be difficult to impossible getting 3-phase to a residence. If it's possible, it would be quite expensive.

[Eberhard]

if america has a problem with their old-fashioned grid - you have to upgrade it now. DC-Charging is no solution because they are powered by 3-phase 480V anyway. The same charger can handle 70A on single phase while on 3-phase it can handle 3x32A = 96A and even higher, because the riddle on the DC-side is less and the capacitors and coils can be smaller.

[NigelM]

It can be difficult to impossible getting 3-phase to a residence. If it's possible, it would be quite expensive.

Not true; but it does depend on the power provider and what service they have in the street. We have it; it was installed before we bought the house (no idea why) and then the local power company replaced the cables with new ones when we installed our PV system.

Note: we live on an island and generally the homeowner owns the cables from the house to the street; replacing them would have cost $800-$1,500 normally. We were lucky enough to have an historical situation where the power company owned our cables and they replaced them at their cost.

[vfx]

... I recall Tesla stating the range specs they were going to use for the Model S were going to be conservative; stated mileage range being possible in real world driving.

Toyota and Think both said that at first. Then the marketing guys get ahold of the numbers....

[AnOutsider]

It can be difficult to impossible getting 3-phase to a residence. If it's possible, it would be quite expensive.

If you had your own power, say solar or such, would that make a difference?

[stopcrazypp]

The current Roadster charger will be able to charge the car fully in about 6 hours. And don't forget, you don't have to charge the car fully to use it. It just needs to be charged enough for your daily use, so most likely it'll take much less than that to charge it. I don't think 3 phase is really necessary for home charging.

As for 3 phase in residences in the US, I don't think it'll be that common for most EV buyers, even if it can be done for a somewhat reasonable price, since that just adds more expense on top of installing the EVSE and perhaps a second meter. From what I can find for PG&E, you might be able to get 200V 3 phase installed for a decent price as a residence (need to add two more transformers and new meter, probably around $5k), but I'm not sure if they can offer 400V service to residences (may be against code).

[dpeilow]

Wow. Assuming that's the full theoretical capacity, i.e. comparable to 56 kWh for the Roadster

Well, the exact quote is this:


And your watt-hours per mile must be less than 300 for a 90 kilowatt-hour pack for you to reach 300 miles. We are confident of doing so.

He seems to have forgotten the margin on DoD.

[doug]

The current Roadster charger will be able to charge the car fully in about 6 hours.
...
I don't think 3 phase is really necessary for home charging.
Except that you're not allowed to pull more than 16 Amps single phase in much of Europe. Would you want to be limited to only charging your Roadster with 16 Amps?

I'm really tired of every thread turning into a 3 phase discussion. How about we just respect that the Europeans know what they're talking about when they say they really need a 3 phase charger for the Model S. No, it's not really "needed" in the US, but the Model S is a global vehicle and Tesla really should at least have the option for European customers. Tesla knows that by now. It's up to them to follow through on it or not. There's no need to continue to debate it across all threads.

[dpeilow]

And we are going to see *a lot* of 22kW, 3P chargers popping up all over the UK in the next year. It would be really annoying if the Model S couldn't use these while Renault owners could.

[NigelM]

It can be difficult to impossible getting 3-phase to a residence. If it's possible, it would be quite expensive.

If you had your own power, say solar or such, would that make a difference?

In our case, yes (or maybe). Given that we have a large PV system and a bi-directional meter, we are exporting power back into the grid all day long and then drawing it back at night. Now, when we were installing the PV the local power company engineer who came to visit did not impress me with his knowledge level but he did feel that 3-phase was a good idea and he recommended renewing all the cables (at their expense) just to be sure. The implication was that this was good to have because of the power running both ways. Who was I to argue? :wink:

[Eberhard]

and in germany the Mennekes type 2 from RWE, EON or Vattenfall will deliver even 63A = 44kW

[Norbert]

Well, the exact quote is this:


And your watt-hours per mile must be less than 300 for a 90 kilowatt-hour pack for you to reach 300 miles. We are confident of doing so.

Charging 80% of a 90 kWh battery in 45 min takes 96 kW. That's already a bit more than SAE plans for DC level 2 (90 kW) as the maximum. And I'd guess it won't take more than a few years until even larger battery packs become available. 45 min is a fine time for a stop on a long trip. More than that means waiting. Probably it will take many years until anyone else than Tesla, or someone directly supporting Model S, would install chargers with 90 kW, even if SAE is an accepted standard. So if Tesla really wants to get to 45 min, they are probably on their own, whether or not they use SAE, and so SAE might be good only for PR. Or as an additional option, along with an option for CHAdeMO, and another one for Mennekes. On the other hand, Tesla seems to be de-emphasizing the need for fast-charging for the near future, where there are enough customers who are fine with home/work/hotel charging only.

So I'm really curious how the Model S will fast charge. :)

[dpeilow]

IIRC didn't someone a few months back say that the 45 minute claim referred to the 230 mile version?

But if it is the behemoth SAE plug, it makes the puzzle of where they've hidden the charge port even more mysterious.

[TEG]

But if it is the behemoth SAE plug, it makes the puzzle of where they've hidden the charge port even more mysterious.

Didn't we hear that it will be a Tesla proprietary interface/connector with adapter modules to standards?

With the retail stores trying to look a bit like an Apple store, I keep thinking, conceptually, of iPhone charge and interface adapter modules...
http://handspreca.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/sendstation-pocketdock-line-out-mini-usb-for-iphone-or-ipod-300x214.jpg

[Mitrovic]

I can't find it, but I guess it must be somewhere: What is the expected weight of the model S?
Fisker Karma is about 2200 to 2400 Kg. Much too heavy!

[Lloyd]

I can't find it, but I guess it must be somewhere: What is the expected weight of the model S?
Fisker Karma is about 2200 to 2400 Kg. Much too heavy!

Weight is 3825 lbs or 1735 Kg. Remember that the Center of Gravity will be much lower than the Fisker also due to the positon of the battery which will help also.

[Mycroft]

Fisker Karma is about 2200 to 2400 Kg. Much too heavy!

Well, it does have both batteries and an ICE.

[dpeilow]

Didn't we hear...

I thought that was a suggestion on here that took on a life of its own.

[Norbert]

I thought that was a suggestion on here that took on a life of its own.

IIRC that was someone's understanding of what a Tesla employee said in personal conversation.

[TEG]

I thought that was a suggestion on here that took on a life of its own.

Model S Prototype (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/5582-Model-S-Prototype?p=70080&viewfull=1#post70080)

...I asked about the charge port. The victim of my queries admitted that he knew where the port was going, but they weren't allowed to say yet. I guess they want to make a big announcement at some point. He did confirm that it was a proprietary connector, but he promised that "I would really like it". He said that J1772 doesn't support enough current for the fast charge capability. He did say the plug adapters would actually be adapter modules rather than cables -- that sounds very promising...

[Norbert]

Model S Prototype (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/5582-Model-S-Prototype?p=70080&viewfull=1#post70080)

Thanks for pulling that up, TEG. I was already afraid my remark would be misunderstood as referring to another message which I just saw in another thread, where it did sound like some was just suggesting it. Maybe that was the one David had in mind.

[dsm363]

If the 90 kWh pack size is confirmed for the 300 mile option, it will be nice that we can finally let our friend at The Detroit Bureau (http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/01/tesla’s-model-s-all-dressed-up-and-nowhere-to-go/) know he was off in his calculations.

[vfx]

Turn Radius?

2433
The Roadster might have a problem with that radius.

[suxxer]

New image of Model S (check the battery!). I guess this is beta (look at the rims)!?

No trace of the charging door so far...

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2440&d=1314528342


Getting under Model S' skin: Tesla's expanded view of the Model S sedan hit the Santana Row showroom today, where it'll be on display for several weeks. Check out that floor-mounted battery!

2440

[AnOutsider]

Source? Sure it's not the same "exploded" car from the recent shows?

[suxxer]

Source is TM's Facebook page

[Todd Burch]

That's the same exploded car they've shown at the shows...nothing new. They just moved it to the Santana Row store because of the higher foot traffic.

[ISF]

I went down to Santana Row today and took some pictures of the chassis on display. If you are local, go take a look - very interesting and different from other car designs, of course.

2441

2442

2443

2444

2445

2446

2447

2448

2449

2450

[AnOutsider]

I went down to Santana Row today and took some pictures of the chassis on display. If you are local, go take a look - very interesting and different from other car designs, of course.

2441

2442

2443

2444

2445

2446

2447

2448

2449

2450

Cool pics, thanks for posting. I wish I could see an ICE frame side-by-side for a good comparison of extra space. Easy to see this without seats and such and think "ooooh spacious!"

[strider]

So does this mean they've pulled the Roadsters from the Santana Row showroom? Interesting - guess they are converting to pushing Model S full time.

[Citizen-T]

I think so. They are sold out of U.S. Roadster custom orders. No sense in marketing it anymore.

[efusco]

Nice photos, love seeing this new development stuff.

[ISF]

There was a red roadster sitting there in the Santana Row showroom next to the Model S shell. But there were 2-3 guys talking with everyone about the Model S and providing technical info about 160/230/300 miles per charge and the price starting at $57K.

[Lloyd]

I believe that is the Santana Demo car yet to be sold.

[Citizen-T]

I believe that is the Santana Demo car yet to be sold.

Right, there are still a handful of already built cars that they used for test drives and marketing that they will sell. You just can't order a custom built Roadster anymore. (in the US)

[NigelM]

Right, there are still a handful of already built cars that they used for test drives and marketing that they will sell.

And remaining inventory....here's 2 of them:
24702471

(Hang on, this is supposed to be the Model S thread...)

[Citizen-T]

Do my ears deceive me or does Elon say here that the Model S has a range of over 300 miles?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj-gbSqq9gg&feature=player_detailpage#t=2733s

Think there might be an updated to the Model S spec sheet come this weekend?

[Todd Burch]

Sounded like over to me.

Could have just misspoken...but I think I read somewhere that internal testing showed they were getting a range over 300 miles. (Might just have been a rumor though).

Even though he said over 300 miles--I'm not sure that means much. How would it translate to an official range? After all, You CAN get more than 245 miles in the Roadster.

[mt2]

I noticed Robert Llewellyn made a similar comment of "over 300 miles" in his Living With an Electric Car videos (second video after the unfortunate Ampera "EV" reference). He even qualified the comment saying that recent testing by Tesla exceeded 300 miles. I thought it was odd because he seems to research his information pretty thoroughly.

[Norbert]

Tesla Motors Announces Factory in Northern California | Press Releases | Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-motors-announces-factory-northern-california)

(May 20, 2010)

With an optional extended-range battery pack, the Model S will travel over 300 miles per charge.

Robert's comment could mean that, while at that time, it was based on prototypes, that it now has been tested with a close-to-production beta.

[stopcrazypp]

I wouldn't be surprised even if the official EPA range was over 300 miles. Just don't expect it to be too much over (maybe a couple miles). 300 is just a nice round number and, much like the 160, 240 miles, is probably intended to be a general guideline, not a hard number.

[AnOutsider]

315-320 would offer a nice buffer

[Citizen-T]

I think that'd be great, even if it is just a couple miles over. I had always expected the official number to come in at like 295 or something just short of 300. I think getting over that 300mi number would be a big boost psychologically. Kind of the opposite of the $0.99 psychology.

[AnOutsider]

I think that'd be great, even if it is just a couple miles over. I had always expected the official number to come in at like 295 or something just short of 300. I think getting over that 300mi number would be a big boost psychologically. Kind of the opposite of the $0.99 psychology.

Right, you can say "I get 300 miles" without adding an asterisk to it (though I imagine that will be in range mode)

[dsm363]

300 miles in range mode (at highway speeds of 65-70mph) would be amazing. That'll be tough to hit I'd imagine but maybe the new battery chemistry will help.

[TEG]

The have a lot of details live on their web site now as they get closer to locking in final specifications.
So far, nothing seems to have diverged very far from the original project specs, although I don't think we will be seeing pack swapping/switching, at least initially.

Model S Features | Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features)
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/torque_curve.jpg
(Motor torque curve)

[Mycroft]

Comparing the Model S to the A7:

Model S 0-60 = 5.6 vs A7 5.4
Model S 415Nm vs A7 440Nm @ 2900-4500rpm
Model S HP = ? vs A7 HP 310
Model S top = 130mph vs A7 130mph
Model S curb weight = ? vs A7 4,210 lbs.

I think the A7 is passing the S at above 50mph. From 0-40, where zippiness matters most, I think the Model S is going to kick serious tail!

Less weight (guessing) plus tons of torque at the lower RPMs, the model S will simply be more fun to drive off the track. How often do we drive 0-60 vs 0-35 or 0-40?

[Eberhard]

with model s you can do it always. if you do it witcthe a7, people would be scared because of the noise.

[JimmWilks]

From the torque curve, you can see the Model S' torque of 415Nm is at 0-7000rpm. That also gives a peak power number as well as power=(torque (lbft)*revs)/5252, so 415Nm at 7000 is 407 hp. Versus the A7's 310, that looks pretty good! I think the Model S is supposed to weigh in at around 4000lbs, maybe a little under.

[Mycroft]

with model s you can do it always. if you do it witcthe a7, people would be scared because of the noise.

I agree. My SLK55 kicks both these cars ass on acceleration 0-60, but it's kinda loud when I floor it. Not as loud as, say, a souped up Mustang, but still loud enough to get me yelled at once. :redface:

[michiganmodels]

Get the Model S sport version, and it's no contest: Model S Sport Version 0-60 in 4.5 seconds:

"Cutting the brisk 0-60 time of the standard Model S from 5.6 second to under 4.5 seconds, the sportier version features the same 85 kilowatt-hour, 300 miles-per-charge battery pack found in the 2012 Model S Signature series. "

“That’s quicker than a [Porsche] 911 [Carrera],” joked Musk. “Not bad for an electric luxury sedan.”

BREAKING: Tesla Making Faster 2012 Model S, 0-60 In Under 4.5 Seconds (http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1066795_breaking-tesla-making-faster-2012-model-s-0-60-in-under-4-5-seconds)

[Doug_G]

An engineer told me that the gearbox has three shafts, but he wouldn't say much more other than how wonderfully efficient it is. Conceptually it's a simple machine, and anything proprietary would be in the fine details, but perhaps he was unsure how much more he could say. He did say the gears were in pairs, as I would have expected, so I infer there are four physical gears. I believe the Roadster gearbox is roughly similar in design?

[vfx]

An engineer told me that the gearbox has three shafts, but he wouldn't say much more other than how wonderfully efficient it is. Conceptually it's a simple machine, and anything proprietary would be in the fine details, but perhaps he was unsure how much more he could say. He did say the gears were in pairs, as I would have expected, so I infer there are four physical gears. I believe the Roadster gearbox is roughly similar in design?

The engineers told us the gearbox was the same as the Roadster. Just the gearing was different.
Can't remember the exact numbers but the Roadster is like 8:1 and Model S is like 9:1 Maybe efxJim can remember the exact ratios.

[T@oo]

The Roadster has a 8.28:1 overall ratio. The S will be something around 9.35:1 as I conducted here (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6421-Horsepower/page2).

[vfx]

The Roadster has a 8.28:1 overall ratio. The S will be something around 9.35:1 as I conducted here (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6421-Horsepower/page2).
Thanks. I thought he said 9.4.

[T@oo]

Could very well be. The calculations I made where based on 265/30 21" tire / wheel combo.

[Lloyd]

Someone asked what the tire sizes would be with the different wheel options. I wrote down the 2 sizes that they had out on display yesterday. 1. 245 x 45 R19 and 2. 245 x 35 ZR 21 I believe these are fairly common sizes and should make tires fairly accessable.

[mnx]

Someone asked what the tire sizes would be with the different wheel options. I wrote down the 2 sizes that they had out on display yesterday. 1. 245 x 45 R19 and 2. 245 x 35 ZR 21 I believe these are fairly common sizes and should make tires fairly accessable.

I feared 21" tires would be too expensive, but there are very economical options: Hankook Ventus V12 evo K110 (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Hankook&tireModel=Ventus+V12+evo+K110&partnum=435YR1K110XL&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes)

- mnx

[Thumper]

I have been wondering about braking performance for the Model S. I have known since the specs were published that we have 405mm (almost 16 in.) 4 piston discs, but the numbers are not as impressive as looking at those bad boys at the factory. Early 60 to 0 spec is 135 ft. If I look at the BMW 5 and Audi 7 test data at Road and Track, they both beat that with 14ish single piston sliding caliper discs and 400ish extra pounds. I think the Model S braking is going to be awesome and considerably better than the early spec. Does anyone know new braking performance data?

[gdh66]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.

[jkirkebo]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.

I think you could easily fit a spare in the "frunk". If you have two sets (summer+winter) tires, just keep one of the other type in the frunk...

[AnOutsider]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.

Wow, I didn't even consider a spare! It's funny that there's so much space and no spare, but it makes sense from the standpoint of carrying extra weight.

[ckessel]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.
Depending on where you drive and other factors, run flats may have emergency security value. For me, run flats are something I've never personally seen much need for. If I get a flat, I call a tow truck and have it towed to a repair shop. I had a flat I think 3 times in 20 years. I just can't really envision a time where run flats would help much given my driving habits.

[Jkam]

I have been wondering about braking performance for the Model S. I have known since the specs were published that we have 405mm (almost 16 in.) 4 piston discs, but the numbers are not as impressive as looking at those bad boys at the factory. Early 60 to 0 spec is 135 ft. If I look at the BMW 5 and Audi 7 test data at Road and Track, they both beat that with 14ish single piston sliding caliper discs and 400ish extra pounds. I think the Model S braking is going to be awesome and considerably better than the early spec. Does anyone know new braking performance data?

I don't know what the braking data is, but I know after going on the test ride, the regenerative braking will have to considered in the calculation. On the test ride after going 0-70 the driver pretty much coasted which engaged the regenerative braking and we slowed down quite fast. If he pushed on the brakes, we would have slowed down even faster.

[Zextraterrestrial]

I saw somewhere that the rear seat folds down. Has anyone seen this? I would assume they do, with the hatchback configuration and all. Not that I want my dogs in the car wiping their noses on everything, but it would be nice to take road trips w/ the beasts w/out them sitting on the leather (ouch). And maybe I could sell my current car for a bigger deposit ; > unless someone has $35 to spare. really

[Mycroft]

Yep, the rear seats fold down in a 60/40 configuration. Or would that be 70/30? From the pictures, it looks like you could seat two people with the right-most seat folded down or one person with the left section folded down. That Motor Trend article is the first that I've seen of the specs for space. 28.7 cubic ft with the seats up and 58.1 with the seats down.

One of the first things I'm going to do is make up some kind of protective blanket to roll out in the back for hauling crap. If I can get a roof rack, for carrying plywood, then I'll be able to get rid of the old Escort wagon workhorse.

[Mycroft]

Specs from the Motor Trend article (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1110_2012_tesla_model_s_first_ride/) that I haven't seen anywhere else:

Front trunk space: 8.1 cubic feet (229 liters)
Rear "trunk" space: 28.7 cf (812.7 L) (most likely not including jumpseat footwell space)
Rear space with seats folded down: 58.1 cf (1,645 L)

Total storage space not including footwell = 66.2 cf (1,874.6 L)

For comparison:

Audi A7 rear trunk space: 24.5 cf (693.7 L) seats down: 49.1 cf (1,390 L)
Porsche Panamera 15.7 cf (444.6 L) and 44.6 cf (1,262.9 L)

[robaross]

Where did MT get the EPA mileage and CO2 estimates? Unless you count what's needed to generate my electricity, I thought I was CO2 free.

[Lloyd]

Has anyone heard any skidpad estimates for the Model S yet??

[JimmWilks]

The storage space info is on the Tesla site somewhere I think.

[Mycroft]

The storage space info is on the Tesla site somewhere I think.

This is all that I found:

3066

[mt2]

This is all that I found:

3066So there you have it; 36.8 total is 8.1 up front and the remaining 28.7 is in the back. But I find it kind of misleading. They never state 28.7 in back and call the 8.1 in front "additional"; which sounds to me like 36.8 in back and 44.9 total. I hope that is not intentionally misleading.

[Mycroft]

So there you have it; 36.8 total is 8.1 up front and the remaining 28.7 is in the back. But I find it kind of misleading. They never state 28.7 in back and call the 8.1 in front "additional"; which sounds to me like 36.8 in back and 44.9 total. I hope that is not intentionally misleading.

I don't think it's intentionally *misleading*. After all, even if you don't count the front trunk, it's still significantly more than the competition. I think it's more that they're trying to stay as vague as possible on specs overall, until the production model is finished. Either the material they provided to the press has more detail or the reporter was able to wheedle the information out of a PR flunky.

In fact, they're probably being too conservative. They should be promoting the foot well space as well. It's a perfect place to stash emergency kits.

[clea]

This is all that I found:

3066

on the features page http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features#/interior they state the 36.8 total cubic feet of storage but that "Model S features an additional 8.1 cubic-foot compartment under the hood. With the seats folded flat, Model S boasts over 66 cubic feet of storage". not stating specifically that it is 66.2 but not contradicting it either ... and the 58.1 is derived from the other two numbers

[Mycroft]

clea, when I read that, I couldn't tell if the 36.8 included the 8.1 or if the 8.1 was in addition to the 36.8. Without that information, it's impossible to calculate the 58.1.

[clea]

clea, when I read that, I couldn't tell if the 36.8 included the 8.1 or if the 8.1 was in addition to the 36.8. Without that information, it's impossible to calculate the 58.1.

i assume they mean additional as it is stated as such on the webiste ...

[Lloyd]

Has anyone heard any skidpad estimates for the Model S yet??

I saw on the performance video on the Tesla site where in the beginning they have a lateral acceleration meter. Although not pushing the limits it showed 7.5 m/s/s lateral acceleration. Assuming 9.81 as the conversion to G's that equals .77 g's. Not bad for a sedan.

[WhiteKnight]

I saw on the performance video on the Tesla site where in the beginning they have a lateral acceleration meter. Although not pushing the limits it showed 7.5 m/s/s lateral acceleration. Assuming 9.81 as the conversion to G's that equals .77 g's. Not bad for a sedan.

BMW M5 (maybe not a fair comparison) pulls .91g on skidpad.

[Lloyd]

BMW M5 (maybe not a fair comparison) pulls .91g on skidpad.

I expect when the final numbers come out it will do at least as well as the M5 if not better! I just thought I would note what I was able to find and answer my own question!!

[neroden]

Someone asked what the tire sizes would be with the different wheel options. I wrote down the 2 sizes that they had out on display yesterday. 1. 245 x 45 R19 and 2. 245 x 35 ZR 21 I believe these are fairly common sizes and should make tires fairly accessable.

The 21" size is not really that common and there seem to be no snow tires in that size. The 19" size, thankfully, is *quite* common and gives a *large* selection of tires, including multiple choices of snow tires.

I suppose I will have to find out from Tesla exactly what wheels they are using on the 19"s so that I can order an extra set for my snow tires. And two more for spares.... aaah, looks like tire costs will be several K. At least I can do that after getting the car since I should get mine in the summer.

[de704]

Here are the specs that I have seen from watching recent videos, investors calls and looking on the tesla design studio. & I think I did a pretty thorough job.

after all, I'm the annoying "Tesla Firsties!!" guy :)


Base Price $49k after federal tax rebate of $7500. (full price $57,000)
Base Price Model S Siganture (The first 1000 Model S's) is $87,000 before federal tax rebate.
-The 160 mile range Model S will not be offered for the first 5 months of production
-Their will be no leasing option from Tesla Motors for the model S for atleast the first year of production

Front and rear trunks
Drag coefficient of 0.22
17 inch infotainment screen
3G (or maybe 4G) wireless internet access (can become a tethered hotspot for 4 devices)
4 usb ports
hours of climate control when car is parked.
3 backup cameras, rear-center, rear-right, & rear-left
Charge port hidden behind the left rear tail light
Two on-board charger options of 10-kilowatt (standard) or 20-kilowatt
Curb Weight 3,825 lbs
Acceleration 0-60 mph s: 5.6 seconds (Sport: 4.4 seconds)
Top Speed 130 mph
17 inch wheels standard

Battery options
--------------------
160 miles
230 miles (+$10k)
300 miles (+$20k)

Optional
--------------------
Adjustable Air Shocks
Panoramic roof (largest ever)
2 rear jump seats
19 inch wheels (no 21in wheels)

[dsm363]

When did they announce three backup cameras? That's awesome if they pull that off.

[gg_got_a_tesla]

17 inch wheels standard

Optional
--------------------
19 inch wheels (no 21in wheels)

Nope; 19" are standard and 21" optional. No 17" wheels. See Model S Design Studio | Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design).

And, to nitpick, the base price after rebate is $49,900 - $900 is significant enough :smile:

[Mycroft]

$900 is significant enough :smile:

Yeah, you can use it to pay for the upgrade to 21" wheels. :biggrin:

[Doug_G]

3G (or maybe 4G) wireless internet access (can become a tethered hotspot for 4 devices)


By "tethered" I assume you mean car WiFi, not literally tethered with cables? 4 devices? Or do you mean tethered via 4 USB connectors? Or...???

[de704]

When did they announce three backup cameras? That's awesome if they pull that off.

Here :-)

http://youtu.be/5CjnL573Tcc


Actually it's 3 min and 50 seconds in so use this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CjnL573Tcc&t=3m50s

The guy says "your HD camera will be a tri-view camera."

so the backup camera is a HD camera too, woo hoo!

[Mycroft]

I remember seeing that. Apparently, they're going to have mini-cameras installed in the side mirrors for help in parking.

For some reason audio didn't work in Chrome, but it did in Firefox.

[AnOutsider]

Nope; 19" are standard and 21" optional. No 17" wheels. See Model S Design Studio | Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design).

And, to nitpick, the base price after rebate is $49,900 - $900 is significant enough :smile:

Correct, true base price is supposed to be $57,400



Base Price Model S Siganture (The first 1000 Model S's) is $87,000 before federal tax rebate.

I don't think this is final is it?


By "tethered" I assume you mean car WiFi, not literally tethered with cables? 4 devices? Or do you mean tethered via 4 USB connectors? Or...???

Tethering these days typically means wirelessly (though the very definition of tether typically implies a wire). So you can can use your car's internet through wifi, and supposedly your car can use the wifi of another device (including a cell phone with wireless tethering enabled).

[Doug_G]

Tethering these days typically means wirelessly (though the very definition of tether typically implies a wire). So you can can use your car's internet through wifi, and supposedly your car can use the wifi of another device (including a cell phone with wireless tethering enabled).

That's what I figured. I just wondered where the limit of 4 came from. Seems to match the number of USB ports, which is what confused me.

[AnOutsider]

That's what I figured. I just wondered where the limit of 4 came from. Seems to match the number of USB ports, which is what confused me.

Yeah, a lot of phones and portable hotspots have device limits. Probably a mixture of software and hardware limitations (bandwidth too)

[dsm363]

Here :-)

http://youtu.be/5CjnL573Tcc


Awesome. Thanks. I think I may have watched that before but missed that. That's exciting. Backing up it's always hard to see who's coming if you're parked next to a large truck so this will be very useful.

[linaser]

Base Price Model S Siganture (The first 1000 Model S's) is $87,000 before federal tax rebate.

After all the speculation about the pricing of the Signature Model S around here, I'm a bit surprised to read this number now.

Is this your guess or did I miss some announcement, they made?

Do you have a source for this information?

[efusco]

Does anyone know if the specs in the first post of this thread are the most current available? I guess some might have posted some new information somewhere in the preceding 24 pages of threads, and I'm sure it would be interesting reading, but I'm just not feeling up to that kind of search at the moment.

[Mycroft]

Does anyone know if the specs in the first post of this thread are the most current available?

For the most part, yes. Some of the specs listed are wrong, (like the wheel sizes and prices), others are speculative since the production cars aren't here yet, (like the curb weight).

As previously mentioned, the base price is actually $57,400 and the cost of the Signature Edition is completely unknown, although the most frequent guesstimate has been $80k (post-rebate). Likewise, Elon has said performance or Sport version is to be around $100k, (unknown if that is pre or post-rebate and what options are included with that price).

[efusco]

For the most part, yes. Some of the specs listed are wrong, (like the wheel sizes and prices), others are speculative since the production cars aren't here yet, (like the curb weight).

As previously mentioned, the base price is actually $57,400 and the cost of the Signature Edition is completely unknown, although the most frequent guesstimate has been $80k (post-rebate). Likewise, Elon has said performance or Sport version is to be around $100k, (unknown if that is pre or post-rebate and what options are included with that price).Probably a good idea to update the pricing and such since we know at least the base issues on those, but I'm more interested in the physical specs--HP, wheel base, motor kWh rating, etc. I saw that the cargo room will be 36.8 cu ft, 66 cu ft with the seats laying flat--would be good to add that to the OP just to keep a summary in one easy to find spot.

[Mycroft]

Whoops, I thought you were referring to Dean's post of the specs in post 225 (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/2478-Model-S-specs?p=93735&viewfull=1#post93735). Yeah, TEG hasn't updated the first post in a while. Most of what we know is speculation anyway, so it's not that important.

[TEG]

TEG hasn't updated the first post in a while...
I didn't really have to - they have stayed quite close to the original planned specs they announced some years back.

Perhaps the # of cells in the pack has changed (but we don't know for sure the new #s), and there are comments that the CD may be .22 not .27 which is an amazing improvement. Will the .22 be for cars with the optional "aero wheels", I wonder?

[Mycroft]

they have stayed quite close to the original planned specs they announced some years back.

I think that's pretty amazing in itself. Keeping to the $49,900 base price has probably been their biggest challenge. You gotta know the base model is probably the best bang for the buck.

[Todd Burch]

Take all the info from the sales guys in these videos with a grain of salt. Tesla still hasn't quite mastered the art of getting their sales folks all on the same page.

For instance, in the video he says that you won't be able to browse the internet while the car is in drive, whereas Elon says otherwise. i'd tend to put weight on Elon's view...but either way there's a little but of unintended misinformation that goes out with each of these videos.

[Zextraterrestrial]

Does anyone know the width of the trunk area - specifically between wheel wells? I am hoping 4'x8' sheets will fit

[WhiteKnight]

Does anyone know the width of the trunk area - specifically between wheel wells? I am hoping 4'x8' sheets will fit

Most crossovers are not 4 feet wide between the wheel wells (that was a question for me shopping for my last vehicle). I am highly doubtful that the Model S Sedan is 4 feet wide between the wheel wells. With that said it is a wide sedan, but I would be surprised. And I would be even more surprised if it could fit an 8' sheet of plywood. If my van will fit an 8' sheet then it's only just barely. My Honda Pilot only had 6' of length.

[Kevin Harney]

Does anyone know the width of the trunk area - specifically between wheel wells? I am hoping 4'x8' sheets will fitI just looked at the beta the other day and I would be totally surprised if a sheet of plywood would fit in there. I seriously doubt it.

[Robert.Boston]

There's some precise measurements on the official boards, here (http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/taking-requests-random-measurements-and-photos):

A relevant post:

The width of the rear cargo opening is ~43" measuring from the inner edges of the car's frame. However, there are some plastic runners (for supporting a security blind over the cargo area maybe?) near the middle region of the opening which constrain the width of the openining to ~40" in that region. The height (along a diagonal) of the opening is ~41" from the top to bottom edge of the frame. There's an additional well at the bottom of the cargo area, which is 36" wide X 17" long (front-to-back) X 14" deep.
Based on the picture, it doesn't look like a 48" wide board can fit, unless you can flex it -- okay for thin plywood, bad for sheetrock.

[Lloyd]

There's the roof rack attach points!

[Norbert]

Diagonally perhaps?

[Robert.Boston]

I don't think diagonally works --
The height (along a diagonal) of the opening is ~41" from the top to bottom edge of the frame.
This is caused by the steeply in-sloping edges.