UNOFFICIAL: Bluestar Pricing and Options

[VolkerP]

Bluestar is the Tesla code name for the vehicle platform following the "skateboard" platform on which the Model S and Model X were based. As of today, only very little is known:

The platform is intended to spawn an 'affordable' vehicle suitable for mass production, priced at $30k after a $7500 tax credit.
Release date of first vehicle based on that platform is 2015 or 2016.
Tesla wants to position this platform in size, price, and utility against BMW 3 series.

So now is the time to put all reasonable facts and assumptions on Bluestar together and publish an enthusiasts-compiled "pricing and options" sheet for the cars based on the Bluestar platform.

Bluestar Platform - UNOFFICIAL Options and Prices Based on the Bluestar platform, Tesla hones its world-leading EV architecture to the next level. The refinement of that platform sticks with the Tesla brand of premium quality and performance while at the same time targets the affordable, mass-marketable vehicle promised years ago in the company blog. The platform not only spawns Model R, the long-anticipated successor to the Tesla Roadster, but also a compact-class family sedan named Model C.
All TESLA Bluestar vehicles share the next iteration of the world's leading drive train architecture, consisting of water-cooled battery pack, motor, and power electronics, on board charger, and integrated vehicle energy management. The third iteration of the Tesla plug supports charging architectures in all target markets, be it J1772 AC, IEC 62186 (Mennekes) or DC quick charging standards.
Wasn't that a good bit of marketing burble!:biggrin:




Model C
Model R
Model R Sport


class
three door compact family sedan
two door roadster
two door roadster


seats
5
2+2
2+2


availability
Summer 2016
Summer 2015
Winter 2015


base price
$29,900*
$44,900*
$64,900*


standard features
12" touch screen
air condition
electric power steering
6 air bags
17" wheels with all-weather tires
2 piston all wheel disc brakes
15" touch screen
air condition
electric power steering
quick charging
6 air bags
19" wheels with all-weather tires
4 piston front disc brakes
15" touch screen
air condition
electric power steering
quick charging
8 air bags
pax retention system
racing performance 6 piston front disc brakes
19" forged alloy wheels with performance tires
leather interior
carbon fiber accents + spoilers
all wheel drive
air suspension


dimensions: height
track
wheelbase
length
58 in / 147cm
60 in / 152 cm
104 in / 264 cm
170 in / 431 cm
54 in / 137 cm
60 in / 152 cm
104 in / 264 cm
162 in / 411 cm
same




*) after $7,500 tax credit



Battery and Drive Train Specifications





Model C

Model C

Model C

Model R

Model R

Model R Sport



capacity
30kWh
45kWh
60kWh
45kWh
60kWh
60kWh


base price
$29,900*
$34,900*
$39,900*
$44,900*
$49,900*
$64,900*


cell type
3.4Ah Li-ion NPP
3.4Ah Li-ion NPP
4Ah Li-ion **
3.4Ah Li-ion NPP
4Ah Li-ion **
4Ah Li-ion **


# of cells
2178
3267
3696
3267
3696
3696


range at 55mph
140 miles
200 miles
255 miles
210 miles
270 miles
270 miles


max. power
120kW
180kW
240kW
185kW
240kW
255kW


0-60 mph
7.4s
6.5s
5.8s
5.2s
3.9s
3.2s


top speed
105 mph
110mph
110mph
120mph
125mph
130mph


curb weight
3275 lbs
3425 lbs
3615 lbs
2245 lbs
2325 lbs
2490 lbs




*) after $7,500 tax credit
**) to-be-announced, advanced cell chemistry optimized for automotive appliance.


Charging options




Model C - 30
Model C - 45
Model C - 60
Model R - 45
Model R - 60
Model R Sport


AC on board charger 10kW
standard
standard
standard
standard
standard
standard


additional 10kW charger
n/a
$900
$900
$900
$900
$900


DC supercharging up to 90kW
n/a
$1,200
standard
$1200
standard
standard


CHAdeMO support *
n/a
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500




*) charge power may be limited by the vehicle



Disclaimer I put this information together from informed speculation from the Blue Star Wish List (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7138-Blue-Star-Wish-List) thread and others. Feel free to point out additions and corrections and I will update to what seems to be the consensus.

Motivation Tesla announced Model S prices and options on Dec 22, 2011. They took reservations for general production and signature cars beginning of April, 2009. Though it was clear that reservation holders were putting their money on a "unicorn" with little but the sketchiest data, many were unpleasant with the announcements that Tesla made in the time between, with the latest climax being the announcement of options and prices. A non-exhaustive list of disappointments includes



only 300 mile range battery pack for signatures. Sig reservation holders opting for smaller pack sizes faced $20k or $10k price increase over the base and medium size packs.
production starts with 300 mile battery pack sizes mid-2012, then 230 mile size in fall, then 160 mile size in winter 2012. Many reservation holders hoped that order of reservation numbers would correlate with production slot and now found that production of their vehicle would be postponed.
signature reservation holders found that they pay $3550 to $5000 more than an equally optioned non-sig model, with a narrowed choice of options. In addition to that, Tesla denied rebates for downgrading from some of the options included in the Signature. Some were happy to get the car early, to get a uniquely badged and painted car, others felt very little reward in that and downgraded their reservation to general production.
It came as a surprise to some that the smaller battery packs were not capable to sustain the same power for the top model acceleration and were rated down in performance and warranty by Tesla, plus the Tesla quick charging solution (aka supercharging) was only available as an option or not at all. Some reservations were dropped because of that.

As a consequence, this enthusiast-compiled list should serve as a best guess for what to expect from Bluestar and what not.

[AnOutsider]

Are you speculating or copying from somewhere? Well formatted!

[Bearman]

Nice work Volker!

[WhiteKnight]

Excellent work. Must have taken a lot of time.

With regard to the top of the line Model R, my guess is that Elon is not going to be satisfied with anything less than the fastest production car (0-60) in the world. So I think the car will be built from the ground up to go 0-60 in 2.4 seconds. I think he'll do this for ego / bragging rights and the tremendous halo it would provide for BlueStar.

So I'm guessing the Model R will be All Wheel Drive for sure (with two motors). It will be ultralight with maximum carbon fiber, aluminum (titanium?), etc. And I figure it will have something special in terms of the battery, PEM, inverter, etc (electrical engineers help me out here). Like for instance perhaps it will incorporate a bank of ultra capacitors to deliver the huge power needed for the 0-60 sprint.

So as far as your chart goes your weight figures might need to come down a little bit and the price will need to go up a lot. I think it comes in under $100,000 which is a steal compared to the $1.7 million Bugatti Veyron it is supplanting but it will not be much under $100K.

[richkae]

I think the weight numbers for the Model R are too optimistic. A 3200 cell battery is not going to be much less than 500 pounds.
Also the range / kWh for the Model C ( especially the Model C-30kW ) seems very optimistic.

The 0-60 time for the 45kW Model R is too pessimistic for a weight of 2245 pounds. 2245 pounds is about 20% less than the current Roadster, and a 45kWh battery at the same discharge rate is only 15% less than the current Roadsters 53. I think low 4s would be super easy, even cheaping out on the PEM/motor.

All that said, I want one.

[Norbert]

I think they (and Panasonic) will try their best to get the ranges the same as the current Model S ranges (while the Model S ranges will increase in the meantime).

[TEG]

3 door, not 5 door?

[jkirkebo]

3 door, not 5 door?

And a sedan to boot. Won't sell in Europe at all. It needs to be a 5-door hatchback, like the Leaf.
$4500 for CHAdeMO would be a rip-off compared to Nissans $700.
240kW is way overkill standard in the 60kW version. Offer all battery pack levels with a cheaper ~100KW motor&inverter and sell sport packs for the two larger ones. I'd be all over saving $2-3k here as even the Leaf is much faster than I ever need.
Length at 431cm is somewhat too small, the Leaf is 445cm if I remember correctly. I wouldn't want an even smaller car.

[Eberhard]

And a sedan to boot. Won't sell in Europe at all. It needs to be a 5-door hatchback, like the Leaf.
$4500 for CHAdeMO would be a rip-off compared to Nissans $700.
240kW is way overkill standard in the 60kW version. Offer all battery pack levels with a cheaper ~100KW motor&inverter and sell sport packs for the two larger ones. I'd be all over saving $2-3k here as even the Leaf is much faster than I ever need.
Length at 431cm is somewhat too small, the Leaf is 445cm if I remember correctly. I wouldn't want an even smaller car.

I cannot see why CHAdeMO should be $4500. Its only a socket, a Can-bus and some software. price is most political. Maybe CHAdeMO charging station should be upgraded to support teslas socket with PLC communication. Its cheaper, because less stations involved compared to the number of cars being put on the streets.

[VolkerP]

Thanks for the feedback so far. I think we'll let discussion roll on a bit before I compile an update.
Just one thing right now: To live the platform idea, IMO all cars must share a battery pack of uniform size & shape and a common chassis architecture (steel/aluminum). Hence the same wheel base and track. A 85kWh battery pack is out of reach as long as cell capacity is not increased by factor of 2, in comparison to the NCR-18650A with 3.1Ah.

[Lokolo]

And a sedan to boot. Won't sell in Europe at all. It needs to be a 5-door hatchback, like the Leaf.

I love the Model S but being a graduate in his first job theres no way I can afford it. However, with a lot of saving and putting off buying a house I could afford the Bluestar. But as a 5 door hatchback type of person I wouldn't buy one if it doesn't come in this version.

I currently have a 5 door Mazda3 hatchback and would expect the same next (something along the lines of what I have now or a Ford Focus).

[user497]

I doubt the model R will be so cheap. They were able to sell 1,400 first generation roadsters above $100k so I doubt that they will drop the price that much if they make faster, longer ranged models. I could see a bigger, heavier, slower roadster in the $50k-$60k range but I don't think you will be seeing a roadster going 3.2s under $80k.

[Kevin Harney]

All I have to say is ....

I hope that you are totally wrong with the Model C stuff. That would be very disappointing to me :(

[Jaff]

Agree...not sure how you're going to either achieve those 0-60 times with a heavier car...not sure how you can hit the quoted price point with an all carbon fibre / aluminum body / chassis + the battery for 65k...hope I'm wrong though...


I doubt the model R will be so cheap. They were able to sell 1,400 first generation roadsters above $100k so I doubt that they will drop the price that much if they make faster, longer ranged models. I could see a bigger, heavier, slower roadster in the $50k-$60k range but I don't think you will be seeing a roadster going 3.2s under $80k.

[Citizen-T]

Elon has definitely said that BlueStar would be a 5-door. Or, I would think it could be either 4 or 5 (like the previously mentioned Mazda3). I think it has to have both options to be truly successful.

If only one, definitely the hatchback.

Also, I think there will be a sport version of BlueStar (that seems to be the pattern), and I think all-wheel-drive is going to become an option for any Tesla after they develop it for the Model X.

[Lokolo]

Elon has definitely said that BlueStar would be a 5-door. Or, I would think it could be either 4 or 5 (like the previously mentioned Mazda3). I think it has to have both options to be truly successful.

If only one, definitely the hatchback.

Also, I think there will be a sport version of BlueStar (that seems to be the pattern), and I think all-wheel-drive is going to become an option for any Tesla after they develop it for the Model X.

Well I like the style of the Mazda3 MPS.... so if they go for something like that I will definitely be pleased.

[richkae]

Here are some issues with your proposed dimensions:

First the Model R - I think you will have a hard time fitting a 2+2 seating arrangement into a 162 inch long car ( maybe you can, but it may be a Fugly shooting brake thing - yuck )

Second I think you will have a hard time making an aerodynamic 5 seat sedan 170 inches long. Length has advantages, the stubby back end of the Leaf hurts its aerodynamics - and its 175 inches long.

[Robert.Boston]

All I have to say is ....

I hope that you are totally wrong with the Model C stuff. That would be very disappointing to me :(
So, what would your vision of the Model C be? VolkerP's assembling and reporting, not opining (much).

[ElSupreme]

I currently have a 5 door Mazda3 hatchback and would expect the same next (something along the lines of what I have now or a Ford Focus).

As a 5 door hatch person myself let me suggest VW. Golf/GTI is really nice. Although the new gen Focus is also right there.

DISCLAIMER: I own a 2006 GTI.

[Kevin Harney]

So, what would your vision of the Model C be? VolkerP's assembling and reporting, not opining (much).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding his points but I thought the Model C was supposed to be similar to the BMW 3 series in size and preformance and cost. I see none of that in his idea. Perhaps the "his Bluestar" is two models away ? I see Model X we know to be the CUV, Models R and C which are the 3.0 Roadster and the sedan/coupe/convertible similar to the BMW 3 series which should be on the same platform. Is his bluestar after that ?

[Kevin Harney]

I am also disappointed in his battery sizes. I hope that they are slightly larger than that. I would need a 300 mile option at the top for my needs.

[Kevin Harney]

For the Model C I think it will be a bit longer in wheel base and length. It needs 0-60 times of at least 4.5- 5.5. It needs a max range of 300 miles (for me anyway). Top speed needs to be in the 155mph range on the sport version. It will need to come in 3 variants sedan/ coupe and convertible with a sport option on all 3. And it needs to start at about $35,000 not including the $7,500 rebate which would mean they could advertise starting at $27,500 if they wanted. I think a loaded sport version could easily be in the $75-$85K range. Attached are the dimensions of the BMW just for reference.

[VolkerP]

Thanks a lot for your input, Kevin, and everybody else.

Many forum contributions went into the compilation of this bluestar data sheet. I made up a few numbers to make it look plausible but apparently it is impossible to please every one. Below follows a compilation of counter proposals that actually where backed up by data, argumentation, or other references.


Vehicle class: Model C three door compact family sedan, Model R two door roadster
I picked the Roadster as a premium price-able vehicle for the introduction of the bluestar platform, with the sedan as the follow-up to tap into that rather large market segment. If you want to discuss a coupe or a convertible, you should find a good reason why Tesla would want to do these before a sedan class vehicle and why they should follow immediately after a convertible based on the skateboard (Model S) platform.
AWD and sport options for all models surely is in discussion but it would blow up the table. Perhaps I list them as separate options?

The 3 door strategy is a common approach in EU market for entry level models with upgrade option for 5 doors. But it was very badly received here. Everybody wants a 5 door hatchback, no one sees the possibility to save a few grand here. OK. Ditched.


Prices: Model C-30: $30k, C-45 $35k, C-60 $60k; Model R-45 $45k, R-60: $50k, R-S: $65k

I suggest to discuss pricing after a consensus on other properties has emerged. E.g. shaving off 1s of 0-60 times will allow to sell the sport variant for $10k more in US market. In Europe, no one gives a cr*p on 0-60 for a family sedan with the exception of motor journalists and top gear fans :tongue:

Dimensions

Thanks to Kevin for supplying the BMW 3 series dimensions. Franz von Holzhausen has stated that the Model S has to look like a conventional sedan. With bluestar, Tesla can start to explore more of the freedom that an electric drive train allows. There is no need for an excessive 8cu ft frunk to make it look like a front ICE vehicle. richkae pointed out that more vehicle back length can benefit aerodynamics. Thus I suggest to start from the exterior dimensions of the BMW 3, move the cabin forward, and stretch the wheel base. Anyone willing to provide some artwork?
so: wheel base: BMW3: 108, Model S: 116, Model C+R 104->112. Will fiddle with the rest.

Battery and Drive Train Specifications
Now this is where the battle is won or lost. Don't tell me you want 300 miles. Everybody wants 300 until he sees the penalty for that. Please provide a reasonable suggestion on which sweet spot Tesla must aim to make bluestar a success. Constraints are price, weight, availability of higher capacity cells, maximum charge and discharge power, resulting in 0-60 time and curb weight. Please solve for x.
No one commented on the cell sizes I listed, so these look ok.

Thanks for comparing pack capacity and curb weight with Roadster data. This should be a valid data point to adjust estimations.

I liked the comment that Model C variants don't need >200kW peak power. I will combine that with the idea to describe performance models as a separate option.

Charging options
Thanks to jkirkebo for pointing out the CHAdeMO option price for the LEAF. Will change $4,500 to $700, accordingly. Tesla will get called names if they try to introduce a price penalty for a charging standard that they see in competition with their own proposal. :biggrin:

Stay tuned for updates!









Vehicle Size and dimensions

[vfx]

The term "Bluestar" is ours. (I like to take credit for making that name up (Galaxina reference)) If you talk with Tesla people and mention"Bluestar" without putting it onto context, many have no idea what you are talking about.

There will likely be yet another S platform car before we see the smaller skateboard.

[richkae]

The best way to reduce cost of the Model C is to improve the Wh/mile. That needs to be foremost in design goals.

1. Improve aerodynamics by reducing cross section ( width and height ) making for a smaller car.
2. Improve aerodynamics by not using ridiculous giant wheels and giant wheel wells. This has the additional advantages of reducing weight and improving interior space.
3. Improve rolling resistance by not using ridiculous giant wheels.
4. Reduce mass. Once you're all aluminum, you have to make the car smaller. This may conflict with point 1 because a short tall car may have less mass, but worse aerodynamics.

I'm harping on the giant wheels, because I think they are one of the worst features of the Model S in terms of efficiency - although everyone seems to agree they look good.
If you build the car around smaller wheels then you can pack a lot of space into an 108 or less inch wheelbase.

[AnOutsider]

How many luxury cars have small dinky wheels though? They did it right by making the car attractive first, EV second.

[richkae]

How many luxury cars have small dinky wheels though? They did it right by making the car attractive first, EV second.

I didn't say they made the wrong choice for the Model S, just that it has a negative impact on efficiency.

[Eberhard]

Thanks for the feedback so far. I think we'll let discussion roll on a bit before I compile an update.
Just one thing right now: To live the platform idea, IMO all cars must share a battery pack of uniform size & shape and a common chassis architecture (steel/aluminum). Hence the same wheel base and track. A 85kWh battery pack is out of reach as long as cell capacity is not increased by factor of 2, in comparison to the NCR-18650A with 3.1Ah.

the roadster has 56kWh, with the new chemistry (3.1) has around 80kWh.

[richkae]

If you reduce the wheelbase of the Model S from 116 to 108 and reduce the track ( width ) about 6 inches from 66 to 60 you have reduced the footprint available to the battery by about 18-20%
However if you reduce the wheel openings down from fitting 21s to 15s you actually get some of the space inside the wheelbase back - so maybe your battery box is only 15% smaller.

If you can improve the Wh/mile of the car by 15% then you can have a 300 mile range car with a 72kWh battery ( 15% smaller than 85kWh ).

Although I'm not saying that 300 mile range should necessarily be offered on the Model C.

[Norbert]

If you reduce the wheelbase of the Model S from 116 to 108 and reduce the track ( width ) about 6 inches from 66 to 60 you have reduced the footprint available to the battery by about 18-20%
However if you reduce the wheel openings down from fitting 21s to 15s you actually get some of the space inside the wheelbase back - so maybe your battery box is only 15% smaller.

If you can improve the Wh/mile of the car by 15% then you can have a 300 mile range car with a 72kWh battery ( 15% smaller than 85kWh ).

Although I'm not saying that 300 mile range should necessarily be offered on the Model C.

Also, even the cells used in the MODEL S, 85 kWh version, leave some space in the pack.

[ElSupreme]

I'm harping on the giant wheels, because I think they are one of the worst features of the Model S in terms of efficiency - although everyone seems to agree they look good.
If you build the car around smaller wheels then you can pack a lot of space into an 108 or less inch wheelbase.

One note about the wheel size. As an avid cyclist there is an absurd amount of aerodynamic data on wheel size. In general smaller wheels do NOT equate to less drag, but more. This is because the linear velocity is the same on both wheels, and because the wheel actually turns over more (more RPMs) and churns up more air. Granted on a wheel shrouded vehicle this is a different case. And the larger the wheel well the worse aerodynamics you will be seeing.

Granted the Model S does have ridiculous giant wheels. I thought the 18" wheels on my GTI were stupid big. I downgraded to the 17" ones and have saved thousands on replacement tires (they only seem to make it ~25,000km)!

[vfx]

We have talked before about "stacking" two battery packs for more range.

If you look at the briefcase sized lump at the rear (right) of the battery pack here.

3951

That is a space that contains more batteries. The engineer at Freemont said they had some extra space so they took it.

Same could be done for the next platform.

[ManuVince]

I would go for a nice compromise like the Audi A3 SportBack. A little longer than the VW Golf, so offering more boot space. Not the most sexy for sure, but the best compromise between a small hatch and a sedan. And it would look very nice and sporty with 17" wheels.
For a 101" wheel base, with the Tesla skate board chassis, you can get much more space than what Audi gets. With a body inspired by the Model S that would be a really hot hatch !

[neroden]

I'm not going to speculate on the nature of the Bluestar except for *one* thing: it's not going to be called "model C".

It's going to be called "Model T". Elon has the chutzpah for it.

[dsm363]

Don't know if Ford still has the trademark but found this
E-Commerce News: News: What Lies Beneath the Web Trademark Cases? (http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/3962.html)

Ford also used to have a Model S but I guess Tesla was able to trademark that somehow (or use the name) since it was well over 100 years ago.

[Grendal]

I'm not going to speculate on the nature of the Bluestar except for *one* thing: it's not going to be called "model C".

It's going to be called "Model T". Elon has the chutzpah for it.

Very nice. But I think Model E for Economy/Everyman car would also work.

[Robert.Boston]

Very nice. But I think Model E for Economy/Everyman car would also work.
The, err, "Volkswagon"?

[marcon]

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

2. The Tesla OS is optimised for 17". A smaller screen would mean for Tesla to maintain several different layouts of pretty much the whole OS, otherwise buttons would be too small to use easily. There is a reason Apple kept the iphone's screen size fixed for 5 years. Tesla will try to use as many synergies as possible, not to reduce these. Keep in mind that they are planning to keep the software current for years to come.

3. Reducing the screen size will probably necessitate more physical buttons. Basing a system around non-touch controls also reduces the upgradability of the OS greatly. Teslas design language tries to remove as much clutter as possible. There are only two physical buttons on the dashboard. However, they are in talks with Google to use their voice recognition software, which would reduce the need for physical buttons.

4. Pretty much all reviews of the Model S praise the large touchscreen. This is one of the features of the car that seems to shout paradigm shift the loudest. Tesla is a very forward thinking company and won't want to implement "yesterdays" technology (read: the way it has been done in the last 50 years.)

5. It is unlikely that a smaller screen will make it easier to use. Conversly, if the feedback from Tesla users points to difficulty of use, it would argue for an even larger screen. However, since the screen is already occupying most of the available space, that is probably also unlikely.

6. It is easy to differentiate between high and low cost interiors by using screens of different qualities, i.e. resolution, viewing angles, colour representation, OLEDs etc. (retina mac book pro vs original mac book pro, retina ipad 4 vs ipad 2)

[brianman]

Conversly, if the feedback from Tesla users points to difficulty of use, it would argue for an even larger screen
I don't expect that feedback. My only real complaint about the screen so far is that I want an easy way (button in the climate control block would be great) to turn the 17 into screensaver / black mode at night. Similarly, I've sometimes put the left and right sides of the dash screen to "Empty" to mute it down as well when driving at night.

[Vger]

I don't know what the pixel pitch is on the current screen, but Tesla could consider reducing the physical size of the panel without reducing the pixel count. This is what Apple cleverly did with the iPad Mini. A smaller physical size might really make sense in a considerably smaller cabin, especially in a new-generation Roadster or possible smaller coupe model. Elon has said that the size template for even the Gen III sedan is the BMW 3 or Audi A4. Thinking about those cabins, a 17" screen would be quite out of proportion. Perhaps a 14" or 15" screen with equal pixel count would make more sense.

[vfx]

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

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

- - - Updated - - -


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

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

[ElSupreme]

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


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

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

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

[spatterso911]

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

[gjunky]

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

[vfx]

+1 on OLED!

[Rodolfo Paiz]

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

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

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

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

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

[Teslawisher]

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

ZR-1 killer. ;)

[gjunky]

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

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

[marcon]

Bluestar Platform - UNOFFICIAL Options and Prices

Thanks for the great work of collecting all those tidbits.


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

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


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

Totally agree.


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


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

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



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

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

[Hache]

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

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

[Rodolfo Paiz]

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

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

[brianman]

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

[ElSupreme]

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

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

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

[Rodolfo Paiz]

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

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

[vfx]

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

[eledille]

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

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

[TEG]

I don't know what the pixel pitch is on the current screen, but Tesla could consider reducing the physical size of the panel without reducing the pixel count. This is what Apple cleverly did with the iPad Mini. A smaller physical size might really make sense in a considerably smaller cabin, especially in a new-generation Roadster or possible smaller coupe model. Elon has said that the size template for even the Gen III sedan is the BMW 3 or Audi A4. Thinking about those cabins, a 17" screen would be quite out of proportion. Perhaps a 14" or 15" screen with equal pixel count would make more sense.

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

- - - Updated - - -


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

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

[EV_QC]

very interesting article!! Will Tesla Disrupt? - Seeking Alpha (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1024301-will-tesla-disrupt)

[Hache]

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

[eledille]

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

Ouch... expensive... :)

[vfx]

very interesting article!! Will Tesla Disrupt? - Seeking Alpha (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1024301-will-tesla-disrupt)
This one was great. JRP3 points out how it's a bit overoptimistic but the gist of the article had me giddy.

[aronth5]

very interesting article!! Will Tesla Disrupt? - Seeking Alpha (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1024301-will-tesla-disrupt)

Interesting article but too optimistic. Should this link be added in the battery thread?